5/25/2016

JEFFREYSIMPSON

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail (Ottawa/Quebec Edition) 11 May 2016 JEFFREY SIMPSON jsimpson@globeandmail.com

NooneknowswhatCanadasacceptanceoftheUNsindigenousdeclarationwillmeanforus.

The federal Liberal government on Monday accepted the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
adoptedin2007bytheGeneralAssemblyaftertwodecadesoftortuousnegotiationsbutneverfullyacceptedbythepreviousCon
servativegovernment.WhatCanadasacceptanceofthisdeclarationwillmeannooneknows.
If the declaration remains a flowery statement of lofty principles and goals without any legal standing in Canada, it wont
meanmuch.ThatsthewayitiswithotherUNdeclarations,asopposedtoUNtreaties.
If,however,Canadiancourtsaccordthedeclarationdomesticlegalstatus,thentheimpactcouldbehuge.IfParliamentever
attemptedtolegislatewhatthedeclarationsays,itwouldfaceanightmarishlydifficulttasktoturnlooseandimprecisegoalsinto
detailedlegislation.
Canadaisalreadydoinginwholeorinpartmostofwhatisinthedeclaration.Therearetwoclauses,atleast,thatshouldgive
pause.
ThefirstisArticle26(1),whichreads,Indigenouspeopleshavetherighttothelands,territoriesandresourceswhichthey
havetraditionallyowned,occupiedorotherwiseusedoracquired.Alatersubsectionrequiresstatestogivelegalrecognitionand
protectiontotheselands,territoriesandresources.
QuiteapartfromsortingoutjustwhichlandsparticularaboriginalgroupsmightclaimdontforgetourSupremeCourthas
justmuddiedthesewatersconsiderablyinitsrecentdecisionaboutMtishavinglandclaimsaswellasFirstNationsdoesasov
ereigncountrysuchasCanadareallywanttoenshrineArticle26intoitsownlaw?
CanadaspentdecadeswrestlingwithQuebecsecessionnotjustthepoliticsofit,butthelegalcaseforandagainstit.The
federalClarityActwrittenbyStphaneDion,whoisnowMinisterofGlobalAffairsputverystringentconditionsaroundpos
siblesecession.
IftherightoutlinedinArticle26iscoupledwithotherclausesinthedeclarationaboutselfdetermination(Article3),then
CanadarisksenshriningindomesticlawforaboriginalpeoplewhatitfoughtstrenuouslyagainstinthecaseofQuebec.NoCana
http://www.pressreader.com/

1/2

5/25/2016

JEFFREYSIMPSON

dian government could or would do that, although there are already aboriginal groups that do not accept the sovereignty of
Canada.
Anotherclausedeclaresaboriginalpeoplemustgivefree,priorandinformedconsent(FPIC)toanyprojectontheirlands,
assumingthatthedefinitionofthelandsandthetitletothemisclear.Eveniftitleisnotclear,nativeshaveclaimedthatFPIC
shouldapplyinpractice,astrongerassertionofaboriginalrightsthantheSupremeCourtsinjunctionforconsultationandac
commodation.
Whatdoesfree,priorandinformedconsentmean?Canadiancourtshavebeenclearthataboriginalgroupsdonothavea
veto,butthatgovernmentshaveaheavyresponsibilitytoconsultand,wherepossible,accommodateaboriginalconcerns.
Someaboriginalleadersanduniversityactivistsinsistthatavetoexistsinlaw.TheypointtotheUNdeclarationtobuttress
theircase,whichisoneofthereasonsthepreviousgovernmentwassonervousaboutendorsingit.OthershavearguedthatFPIC
imposesanevenheavierburdenongovernmentsandcompaniestoseekaboriginalagreementbutstopsshortofaveto.
In a very helpful paper for the MacdonaldLaurier Institute, aboriginal leader Blaine Favel, chancellor of the University of
Saskatchewan,andprofessorKenCoatesfromthesameuniversitytrydispassionatelytoexplainwhatfree,priorandinformed
consentmightmean.Theirsisnotaneasytask.
Itsnothardtoseewhyresourcecompaniesmightbedismayedatfree,priorandinformedconsent.IfFPICmorphsintoa
veto,withconsentmeaningapproval,thenforgetaboutpipelinesandmanyotherprojectswhereabunchofdifferentaboriginal
groupsareaffected.Gettingunanimousconsentwouldbenexttoimpossible.
AprojectsuchastheEnergyEastpipelinewouldnthaveachance.Avetowouldmeanthatthewillofthefederalgovernment,
whichoughttospeakforallCanadians,wouldhavealmostnochancetoprevail,nomatterwhattheregulatoryprocesses.IfFPIC
meanssomethingless,itcouldleadtomoreagreements,encouragingcompaniesandgovernmentstonegotiatedealswithwilling
aboriginalgroups,ofwhichtherearemany.
Whatallpartiestoresourcedevelopmentneedismorecertainty,becausefornownoonecansayforsureinmanycaseswho
ownsland,whetheraboriginalpeople(FirstNationsandMtis)havetitle,whatistheprecisedutytoaccommodateandconsult.
Freeandinformedconsentcouldmakethisconfusionmuchworseor,perhaps,bringabitmoreclarity.

http://www.pressreader.com/

2/2