Skip to main content

Tom Flanagan is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary and a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.

The British Columbia Legislative Assembly recently gave first reading to Bill 51, the NDP government’s new Environmental Assessment Act. It does not recognize the veto over resource development that many First Nations have been claiming.

Section 2 says that the bill is “supporting the implementation” of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and seeks collaboration with Indigenous nations “consistent with” UNDRIP. Now, section 32 of UNDRIP is famous for requiring states to “obtain [Indigenous nations’] free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”

Story continues below advertisement

Sounds like a veto power for B.C. First Nations over resource development on their traditional lands, doesn’t it? But you would be wrong to think so. Section 7 of the bill goes on to limit the requirement for Indigenous consent to “treaty lands” or other cases where there is a specific agreement conferring a right to refuse.

This puts a few First Nations in the position of fee-simple landowners who can choose whether or not to allow resource development on their land; in fact, the treaty First Nations’ position is even stronger, because the bill does not create provisions for expropriation.

However, it leaves the vast majority of First Nations under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court’s consultation jurisprudence, which has consistently and explicitly rejected the idea of a First Nations’ veto over resource development.

It is telling that several sections of the bill refer explicitly to the Supreme Court’s consultation jurisprudence. Even section 2, which appears to adopt UNDRIP, says it is “acknowledging Indigenous peoples' rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

UNDRIP is for show, not for go.

A little history puts B.C.’s legislative magic trick (now you see UNDRIP, now you don’t) into perspective. The UN approved the DRIP in 2007. Stephen Harper’s government signed on to it in 2010, but only in an aspirational sense because of the conflicts with existing constitutional law in Canada. In 2014, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended unqualified adoption, and both the NDP and Liberals followed that recommendation in the 2015 federal election campaign.

After coming to power, the Liberals appeared to fulfill that promise, but in fact their adoption was still qualified. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, herself a First Nations person, spoke to the Assembly of First Nations in 2016 with unusual frankness: “simplistic approaches, such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law, are unworkable.”

Story continues below advertisement

The Liberal policy became, both implicitly and explicitly, to accept UNDRIP but only as consistent with existing Canadian law and the Constitution, including the immense body of Supreme Court jurisprudence on Indigenous rights, title, and the duty to consult. This was, for all practical purposes, the same as the Harper government’s aspirational adoption of UNDRIP in 2010, even though the rhetorical emphasis was different.

Now we see the NDP government of British Columbia following the same approach.

It may be maddening to those who would like politicians to speak clearly and truthfully, but such calculated ambiguity is usually the Canadian way. It allows the major political parties to appear to differ with each other while actually coalescing around views that will not overturn the status quo.

That means appearing to respond to the demands of First Nations activists while keeping intact Canadian constitutional law as it has evolved. This is like signing on to climate change accords such as Kyoto and Paris but refusing to take the practical steps that would be required to meet the carbon reduction goals of those accords. The electoral success of such obfuscating tactics suggests they probably represent the position of the median voter in Canada.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter