Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 349
View Marcus Powlowski Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think this is probably one of the most interesting panels in discussing this.
Let me first ask this. In UNDRIP is there any mention of people of mixed descent? I was looking through it, and I don't think so. I do see in article 33 that indigenous peoples have the right to determine their membership. Is there any other reference to people of mixed descent?
If you have to look, don't worry.
David Chartrand
View David Chartrand Profile
David Chartrand
2021-04-15 12:09
No, I don't have to look. I can tell you right now. I think the message in UNDRIP is very clear. It allows indigenous governments to be governments. It sets the clarity of recognizing them as governments. The Métis nation has the responsibility—governments have the responsibility—to establish who the Métis nation is and who belongs to the Métis nation. It's up to us to decide, not you. It's very clear that the particular style of language in here assures us as indigenous people that we will govern ourselves, government to government. That's what it's all about, nation to nation.
On the question of whether it allows mixed ancestries inside there, or allows that group or this group, allow us as governments to establish our own challenges of how we overcome some of these unknowns that this Constitution in Canada has created for all of us.
View Jamie Schmale Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chartrand. I appreciate the contribution.
I appreciate the conversation we're having today. There's a lot of great input. I may need some additional clarification, because you did talk about free, prior and informed consent not being a veto. I appreciate that.
Grand Chief Bellegarde of the AFN has been quoted a number of times as saying, “You simply cannot tell a people that they have no right to say 'no' to what happens to them. Imagine a system where you cannot say no. That’s what we have had for more than a century under the Indian Act. That’s what led us to the mess we are in today.” I do agree with that.
Based on what you said, based what Chief Bellegarde said, what do we do when we're in a conflict situation, say for a major infrastructure project? If we have one nation against another nation, one that wants it and one that doesn't, who makes that final decision? Is that still the Government of Canada? I think that's the clarification we're looking for. I know that could be the next step after C-15 too.
David Chartrand
View David Chartrand Profile
David Chartrand
2021-04-15 12:29
The best way to answer, Jamie, is this: We have indigenous governments already, and if you look at [Technical difficulty—Editor] challenges that we've faced in this country for a while, you have the hereditary chiefs and the elected chiefs. What's important is to let them work it out. That's their business, not ours. It's not yours. It's not mine. It's their business. They need to recognize that. We need to respect their governments and their structures.
From that perspective, I think, as we move forward, we're just making transitional ideology changes in this country, recognizing indigenous governments to be truly equal governments. We're not even there yet, but we're getting our mindset to move towards that. It's like me getting a group of Canadians together and saying, “I represent Canada now. I'm now the new Prime Minister of Canada because I have a group of citizens behind me now.” You would tell me, “You're crazy. Go to the hell. I got elected as an MP. I sit in the Conservative Party. We are the opposition at this point in time, maybe a future government.” You would not accept that I get a group of people together overnight, call myself a new name and become Prime Minister.
We have indigenous governments. Let them do their jobs, and let them clarify their own issues. That's up to them. When we try to stick our noses into their business, that is where trouble lies.
For example, in the federation, in 1967 we created our Constitution. It's been standing strong since 1967. We are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as the rightful voices of our government for our people, so from that perspective I think it's very clear that we're getting there. We still have a way to go unfortunately for citizens to recognize that indigenous people have governments that are equal to federal, provincial and municipal governments, that we have the same jurisdictional powers as their own governments. Once we get there, I think we'll solve that problem.
View Jamie Schmale Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay. I appreciate that, and I do accept that. Each nation has their own way of governance, and I accept that. Absolutely, I agree.
The issue still is, I guess, that if one says yes and one says no to infrastructure projects, and if I'm a company and I still can't get consensus, who makes that final decision?
David Chartrand
View David Chartrand Profile
David Chartrand
2021-04-15 12:32
If you were sitting as a government, the government makes that decision. Everybody has opinions. If I'm the president of my government, my cabinet and my government will make that decision for all of us.
To show our advanced thinking on it, Jamie...and this could be something people could look at. We have what is called resolution number 8. I have 140 locals from all the villages and communities right across this province that make up our grassroots voices and then compile themselves to give us direction at our regional assemblies and annual assemblies. Resolution number 8 was unanimously adopted by 3,000 leaders and people in this province to say this: that no industry, no indigenous local or Métis local on its own can negotiate with the ministry without the Métis government sitting at the table to ensure all citizens are being protected. From that perspective, it's been adopted by all our local, regional and provincial leaders.
We're going on that pathway. I think many will follow. It's a matter of getting there, allowing governments to do their job like we allow you as a federal government. We have no choice but to allow you. You're the government, and we have to let you and fight with you and argue with you until we get our way, maybe, but at the end of the day, we have to respect you as a government, and we'll get there. Let the governments grow—they're growing—but treat them as one.
You'll call me an organization, but don't call me that. Call me a government. I am a government. I take that personally, because we work so hard to ensure that we operate and are responsible as a government.
Mark Podlasly
View Mark Podlasly Profile
Mark Podlasly
2021-03-30 11:04
Good morning, and thank you for this invitation.
My name is Mark Podlasly, and I am a member of the Nlaka’pamux Nation in southern British Columbia. I am speaking to you today from Coast Salish territory in southwestern British Columbia.
I am the director of economic policy at the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, a national collective of 70 indigenous nations working to ensure that first nations receive a fair share of benefits from projects in our territories through the ownership of equity in proposed pipelines, electric infrastructure, transportation routes and other revenue-producing initiatives.
I am here today to speak on behalf of our members in support of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. For our members, UNDRIP already frames how we see development and our ability to direct decisions that are supportive of our interests.
The declaration focuses indigenous attention on how first nations-supported development can enable self-determination as described in UNDRIP article 3. However, it is article 4 that, in the opinion of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, will be key to successfully implementing UNDRIP in Canada.
Article 4 states that:
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
This financing or fiscal component is key to ensuring that first nations have the means to pursue UNDRIP autonomy. No government, indigenous or not, is truly self-determining if it is reliant on an external government for financial viability. It is impossible for a government to function at any level without a source of revenue to pay for its operation.
This is why our members see revenues from indigenous-held equity as providing the financial means for self-determination, and why first nations must implement this according to UNDRIP. Without it, UNDRIP implementation will be impossible.
For first nations, a multi-generational source of equity-derived revenue will allow our nations the ability to set and fund our own UNDRIP self-determination priorities.
These UNDRIP priorities include culture and language. They are, as described in article 11, to practise and revitalize our culture, traditions and customs; in article 12, to manifest, practise, develop and teach our spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies.
They include education and media. They are, in articles 14 and 16, to establish and control our educational systems and institutions, to provide education and to establish our own media in our own languages.
They include economic, social and health improvements. They are, as noted in article 21, the improvement of our economic and social conditions.
They include revenue from traditional territories. They are, as described in article 26, to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that we possess by reason of traditional ownership, occupation or use.
They include development priorities. They are, as described in article 32, to develop and present priorities and strategies for the development and use of our lands and other resources, and as described in article 34, to promote, develop and maintain our institutional structures.
Article 39 notes that we are to have access to financial and technical assistance from states regarding the rights contained in the declaration.
These UNDRIP articles are all dependent on a revenue stream to pay for their implementation. A new indigenous-controlled fiscal component offers significant benefits for first nations and Canada, including greater investment certainty and reduced opposition to projects; self-sustaining indigenous governments; stable own-source revenue streams to fund first nations government priorities; the ability of first nations to access capital sources to leverage their revenue streams to further invest in the Canadian economy; a new nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown as a true UNDRIP partner; direct first nations involvement in the wealth-generation aspects of the Canadian economy; and fulfillment of UNDRIP.
These benefits will accrue only if there is a way for first nations to acquire a revenue stream to support self-determination. At present it is very difficult to nearly impossible for first nations to raise or access substantive capital to invest in major projects.
The advice that I wish to provide to the committee today is that the key to making UNDRIP work in Canada is to start with article 4, which is about the ways and means for financing indigenous autonomous functions. How this is implemented will determine if the promise of Bill C-15 and UNDRIP will be fulfilled.
Thank you.
View Adam van Koeverden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for all of the insight today. These are important subjects, and your insights and perspectives are really important.
I am joining you today from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe, the Attawandaron and, more recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.
My question is for Mark Podlasly. It comes with a glimmer of envy, as you're joining us from the Coast Salish territory, which is one of the most beautiful places in Canada. I hope that there aren't too many people from Milton listening as I express envy for how beautiful your territory is. I'm a water person myself, so I love your territory. That part of the country is beautiful.
I took note of your reference to article 4 repeatedly throughout your testimony today. I looked it up, and I want to read it out for my benefit and for the benefit of anybody else who is interested in listening.
It goes like this:
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
I don't know who it's attributable to, but I have heard that more human rights are never a bad thing. I do know that it was Martin Luther King who said, “A right delayed is a right denied.”
l am a strong believer that these rights have been delayed a tremendously long time. This bill, in swift form, will take action on that and give people and persons the rights they so deserve.
We have spent a lot of time discussing the nuances and differences between a veto and free, prior and informed consent. We also recently heard from a former MP, Romeo Saganash, on his definition or distinction between the two.
I'll read that, and then following that, Mr. Podlasly, I'd ask for your reflections on the subject.
Mr. Saganash said:
Veto and FPIC are two different legal concepts. One is absolute, and that is veto, whereas the other one is relative. Like all human rights, the right to free, prior and informed consent is relative. We have to take into consideration a lot of other factors and facts and the law and the circumstances of a given situation.
Mr. Podlasly, I'd just ask for your reflections on this, and thank you for your testimony today.
Mark Podlasly
View Mark Podlasly Profile
Mark Podlasly
2021-03-30 11:31
Thank you.
The question of ways and means to finance our own autonomy, as you mentioned, in article 4, is the key to any other clauses within UNDRIP. Anything that provides for education, social, linguistic, it all depends on some revenue stream. First nations need a revenue stream like any government to provide those services.
That is why the First Nations Major Projects Coalition sees that as key to UNDRIP, and the implementation of UNDRIP and all its promises will not be possible without that financing.
On the question you raised around whether a veto is in place, either practically or by default, at the coalition we take the perspective that if first nations are included in smart development, up front, as equity partners, then we essentially become co-proponents. Therefore, the question of FPIC as a veto or not is moot because no interested party, or no party that has been consulted and provides consent via an equity ownership, is ever going to run into that problem.
That is why we are very keen on seeing some sort of capital access program or capital access policies that allow first nations to make investments in projects, so that will never be an issue.
View Adam van Koeverden Profile
Lib. (ON)
I really appreciate that answer.
As I have been reflecting and listening, albeit I am new to this conversation as a member of this committee, I get the sense that the conversation keeps coming back to who stands to benefit from a lot of these large operations and projects.
Consistently we've talked about jobs, working-class jobs for people who are there, but it seems in this context we are talking about a form of ownership. This is actually a project that would be owned, in more cases, by first nations. This is not about earning a living. This would be about generating wealth and the long-term viability of various communities.
I ask for your reflections again on ownership and the ability to dictate and self-govern and decide for oneself, with autonomy and self-government and self-determination being the underlying theme and context of this.
Mark Podlasly
View Mark Podlasly Profile
Mark Podlasly
2021-03-30 11:33
I would point out that impact benefit agreements, participation agreements, the ones now in effect across the country with proponents and first nations, are not only about revenue. They are about jobs, environmental protection and contracting opportunities. Many economic engines come into that.
As was pointed out by Ms. Shea, they include provisions for input on mine closure and reclamation of sites. They are very comprehensive. It is not just about revenue, to make that clear. However, first nations moving into an UNDRIP situation, where self-determination as part of UNDRIP is in the equation, will require some sort of funding.
I should point out as well that all the promises of UNDRIP will not be possible under the payment of one government. The federal government will not have the ability to fund everything in UNDRIP. There has to be a partnership in there in some way, because we, as first nations, want to provide many of these services, language retention, things that are important to our communities, like every other community in this country.
View Adam van Koeverden Profile
Lib. (ON)
Which other levels of government or various stakeholders would you see as good or viable partners in that implementation?
Mark Podlasly
View Mark Podlasly Profile
Mark Podlasly
2021-03-30 11:34
It's the Crown, but there are two Crowns in this country—the provinces and the feds. Depending on the arrangement and how the implementation goes for UNDRIP across the country, those two players will have to be a part of the discussion.
I am from British Columbia, which has already implemented an UNDRIP type of legislation and is moving toward that, but the Crown in B.C., at least in my province, will also require input from the Crown federally, and that comes back to your committee.
Harold Calla
View Harold Calla Profile
Harold Calla
2021-03-23 11:26
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the invitation to be here today. It came to us only yesterday, so while we do have some opening comments, we will be preparing a fuller written brief that will be sent to you.
I want to thank our regional chief for his comments and Dale for his comments, most of which I agree with.
I am a member of the Squamish First Nation, part of the Coast Salish community here in British Columbia, and have been involved in my community since 1987, dealing with many of the issues that existed in the colonial relationship between us and the Government of Canada that have resulted in litigation, poverty and social dysfunction in our communities.
We have to ask ourselves how we can change things. First and foremost, we have to recognize that things have to change. Then we have to start discussing and engaging with one another on how that change will take place.
Change will not occur and be successful unless we recognize that there needs to be a place in the Canadian economy for indigenous communities and that their rights and title do attract a duty on the part of Canada to accommodate first nations and to engage with first nations around the decisions that are involved in resource extraction kinds of activities.
The Financial Management Board was founded as a result of all-party support in the House of Commons in 2005. It was developed as a result of first nations wanting to come together to advance their economic interests in ways that could not be done under the existing Indian Act.
The result is that we now have over 300 first nations scheduled to the act; we have over 200 with financial administration laws and about 190 with financial performance certificates. Through the First Nations Finance Authority, we have been able to raise, on behalf of first nations, about $1.3 billion in resources, which they've been able to invest in their economies. Most notably, as you are all probably familiar with, there has been the Clearwater transaction in Atlantic Canada. This comes about as a result of capacity being developed in first nations communities to understand the kinds of opportunities that exist before them.
I would suggest to you that we need clarity around aboriginal rights and title, and I don't accept the notion that this doesn't begin that process of providing some clarity. You need to understand that the lack of clarity today is what has strangled resource development in this country for the last 10 years. We need to change that dialogue. We need to be in a position where “free, prior and informed consent” is not just a term but is something that's practised.
In order for that to be the case, the passage of this bill will trigger the required massive investment in Indian communities so they can engage with the private sector and the Government of Canada on an equal footing to create the means by which aggregation can occur so that information can be supported and decisions can be made.
I think there's a mistaken notion that everyone must agree. Not everyone is going to agree on anything. That agreement doesn't happen in your communities, and it's not going to happen in ours. The question is how we deal with those differences. I'm suggesting to you that it's better if we are allowed to try to deal with them ourselves.
The success of the First Nations Major Project Coalition over the past six years has taught me that communities can come together and support one another on some of these projects. They have actually have done so and have developed environmental stewardship frameworks and advanced some really important projects within their traditional territories. The coalition has offered a place for first nations communities to seek the advice and support they need so they can take their aboriginal rights and title and do the due diligence required to see how they can actually implement projects instead of talking about them in theory.
Access to capital is going to be absolutely critical in this process for first nations to engage in the development of their economies. Through the Fiscal Management Act, we have proven that pooled borrowing, with the support of Canada, can be a great success.
I think we have to not be afraid of UNDRIP. We have to embrace it as an opportunity that has come about that will allow us to undo what the past has brought upon us. I think that's going to be important for us in the future.
I know that some will argue that this will create undue hardship for the private sector and the Canadian economy. I suggest to you that this is the exact opposite of what will occur with this kind of clarification. I think we have seen that occur in British Columbia with the work of the Major Project Coalition and the support of Coastal GasLink. My own community issued its own certificate to develop the Woodfibre LNG project. We engaged in our own process.
I think by this engagement process, by developing capacity and by providing the resources that allow for the due diligence to be done, you'll get to free, prior and informed consent in a way that everyone can have some confidence in it. You need to create the framework for first nations that may not be that large and that may not have the resources to be able to have access to the capacities that they need to deal with the matters that come before them. It doesn't matter whether you're the Squamish Nation with 4,000 people and a significant budget or you're a smaller community in the north—the decisions that are required are the same. The capacity gap between the two circumstances can be quite different unless we create a model that allows for this aggregation and support for the knowledge that's required to make these decisions.
With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity. I will remind you that we will be providing you with a brief on this matter sometime in the near future.
Results: 136 - 150 of 349 | Page: 10 of 24

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data