THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 23, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:46 p.m. [ET] to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021 by Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabeg Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator Arnot: I’m David Arnot, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, from British Columbia.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, from Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
The Chair: Today, we will continue our study to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021, also known as UNDRIP, by Canada and First Nations, Inuit, Metis peoples. The committee is hearing from witnesses to further refine its study topic.
With that, I would now like to introduce our first witness today, Mr. Don Nicholls, Member of the Coalition for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Nicholls. Our witness will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Mr. Nicholls to give his opening remarks.
Don Nicholls, Member, Coalition for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Thank you, chair and honourable senators, for inviting me today. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss this important topic for Indigenous peoples in this country.
Today, I am speaking on behalf of the Coalition for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The coalition has been advocating for the adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration for more than a quarter of a century. We engage with a wide range of Indigenous partners, and we work both domestically and at the United Nations.
Canada’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration Act and its Action Plan are important achievements that have made Canada a world leader in the implementation of the declaration. However, the coalition members are concerned by what some might call a slow or uneven progress toward fulfilling the commitments set out in the act or the Action Plan. In particular, the members wish to highlight the issues of meaningful consultation and cooperation, oversight and accountability, the legal effects of the UN Declaration Act and the training of civil servants.
The UN Declaration Act requires Canada to implement the UN Declaration in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, mirroring the language of the declaration itself. This is a fundamental step in creating a new relationship with Indigenous peoples based on principles of reconciliation, trust, respect and implementing the calls for action of several national commissions and inquiries.
However, in the absence of consultation and cooperation between members of the coalition and federal departments, there is a feeling that this may not be happening as promised or adequately. A meaningful and transparent standard for consultation and cooperation must be established to guide federal departments, and they must be supported in implementing these new standards of relations.
We understand that some Indigenous organizations are having to negotiate for funding for participation on an initiative-by-initiative basis. Others may be diverting resources from priority areas in order to participate in UN Declaration implementation initiatives. Canada must provide federal departments with clear and transparent guidelines on consultation and cooperation, and it must adequately fund all parties engaged in this work. We recommend that the standing committee research or request any guidelines or policies concerning the implementation of consultation and cooperation that may be in development to become more informed as to the standard that is evolving in this area of the act and national action plan.
Canada’s Action Plan to implement the UN Declaration also commits to establishing an “independent Indigenous rights monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy mechanism or mechanisms.” An independent Indigenous rights mechanism is required to mirror implementation of the UN Declaration and the Action Plan and to provide redress and remedies to Indigenous Peoples when their individual and collective rights are violated. This mechanism must be co-developed with Indigenous peoples. Its membership must be culturally fluent to ensure Indigenous laws, customs and traditions are given due respect in the resolution process, as explicitly required by the UN Declaration. The mechanism must also have sufficient and secured funding and full independence so it can hold the government accountable without fear of reprisal. The mechanism must have the authority to order binding recourses and remedies. Recommendations and reports are too often taken under consideration and never implemented.
Since the rights affirmed in the declaration are now part of Canada’s positive law, a tribunal that can enforce these rights is appropriate. A tribunal could also address the financial barrier preventing many Indigenous peoples from advocating for their rights through existing prolonged judicial processes. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal made a strong decision on Jordan’s Principle without the need for costly or delayed access to justice.
The mechanism must also be permanent, to ensure that Canada’s legislative, administrative, policy and regulatory practices remain consistent with the UN Declaration as state-Indigenous relations and Canadian and international law evolve over time.
We also wish to highlight for the committee the need to affirm the legal effects of the UN Declaration Act. The first stated purpose of the UN Declaration Act is to “affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.” A recent reference decision of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously concluded that the declaration is part of Canada’s positive law. The coalition would hope that federal departments would embrace this legal interpretation of the highest court in Canada. As stated in the declaration, these are minimum standards that all states have agreed to, so it is a staring point for the discussions within our nation.
The Department of Justice has a key role to play in providing legal advice to other departments that advance implementation of the Declaration and fulfill Canada’s obligations. Related to that, the coalition would recommend that the standing committee meet with the Justice Department concerning the development of standards and guidance with other federal departments. This guidance should be consistent with the Supreme Court’s affirmation that the UN Declaration is integrated into Canadian law and consistent with best practices to ensure rights are upheld and protected going forward.
There is a legacy of colonial assimilation and discriminatory practices in Canada that continues to negatively impact Indigenous peoples in this country. To move forward, we must ensure that Indigenous peoples are not seen or treated as a vulnerable segment of our society. Discretionary powers perpetuate the status quo and indifference in the treatment of Indigenous peoples. Clear direction is needed if change is to occur and we are to fully realize Indigenous rights.
Finally, we wish to highlight the issue of training provided to civil servants relating to the UN Declaration. The Action Plan included a commitment to develop a training program for public servants, co-created with Indigenous subject matter experts, to build knowledge of Indigenous peoples, the UN Declaration and related matters. The coalition recommends that the standing committee request from the applicable federal departments or institutions, such as the Department of Justice and the Canada School of Public Service, information concerning the training that is taking place to fulfill this commitment. This training should incorporate the numerous reports and studies of the UN Permanent Forum on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples concerning meaningful implementation of the UN Declaration, as well as the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other commissions, inquiries or bodies that have made recommendations with concrete actions to address injustices.
On behalf of the coalition, thank you for the opportunity to highlight these important issues.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nicholls. I will now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. I have this in my notes, and you quoted it here in your comments:
Indigenous Peoples’ organizations may have to divert resources from other priorities in order to be at the table when Declaration implementation initiatives are being advanced.
This is a concern that we’ve heard a lot, not just in regard to UNDRIP but on consultation more generally. Indigenous groups, many of whom are under-resourced and preoccupied with more immediate issues, are at a disadvantage when it comes to advocating for themselves with the federal government. I’ve said this, and others of us have said this.
There is no clear process for what consultation is. We’re just left with the obligation of the duty to consult. I will ask you, as I’ve asked others, do you have any recommendations for how the government could improve consultation processes, yes, to take the barriers away, but also so that the consultation feels meaningful to the people who are supposedly being consulted? Because 99.9% of the time, that has not been our experience, from what we’ve heard.
Mr. Nicholls: Well, in the United Nations, whenever Indigenous peoples are going over to advocate for their rights, there is a voluntary fund that they can apply to, which then allows them to participate. This is an idea that’s used when advocating for Indigenous rights on the international forum that many Canadians will go towards. There are other organizations that sometimes provide that funding as well.
But for us, what we saw as great equalizer is if you had a tribunal, like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where complaints could be made and then taken seriously by an expert body within Canada that would be able to look into those violations of Indigenous rights that, of course, are already affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada so there is no question whether those rights exist and it’s just a matter of processing the violation to ensure that there is something binding there, then it would equalize a lot of it to make sure there is a check and balance that’s there.
As far as the standard, as I said in the comments, when you’re looking at the guidelines that the departments are going to have for consultation, that would be key. It would be very important that those guidelines are inclusive of Indigenous peoples. If it is going to impact Indigenous rights, then there should be a requirement of government, which has the resources to reach out and consult with Indigenous peoples. We believe that is where you can equalize it or make it better.
With the Supreme Court being a check and balance within Canada, they aren’t allowed to go on economic means. They can rule on law and on other areas of government, and they’ve already ruled that the rights that are contained within the declaration are a part of law. If there is a violation of those laws, they’re not overstepping their bounds. If we have a tribunal that merely enforces when a violation occurs of already accepted rights within the country, it would be much easier and more accessible for Indigenous peoples to bring their complaints there. We envision something like the Human Rights Commission but an Indigenous rights tribunal and commission that could, in effect, take those issues to a level and also ensure that the standards in the beginning with departments are stringent enough to get government to comply. They are complying with laws and not with economic decisions.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Mr. Nicholls: I hope that’s clear.
Senator Sorensen: Again, I continually ask for feedback on that because it’s an ongoing conversation. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for being with us. I have a couple of questions.
You started off by being positive. The UNDRIP Act passed. It was not easy. Of course, it came in different iterations, and it came as a government bill and it finally did pass. You’re happy about that, and we’re all happy about that, but your organization is concerned about the slow progress. Do you have a sense or an analysis of what is causing that slow progress? I’ll ask that first, and then I have other questions.
Mr. Nicholls: I think it’s the status quo. If Indigenous peoples were treated a certain way, I think that within the government we have, systemic discrimination occurs. Because things have been done a certain way for so many years, the people in power and who have that discretionary power continue to perpetuate that. So no real change will occur unless there is a clear redirection of that. That’s why we talked about senior civil servants and judges being trained on the declaration and what Indigenous rights are and what those new rights are in Canada, because every time an Indigenous person steps before a senior civil servant, a ministry or a judicial body, they shouldn’t have to explain the declaration. They shouldn’t have to explain rights that have already been affirmed or agreed to. We believe that training is key and could bring the conversation to a certain level.
You’re right. In 2006, I was at the Human Rights Council when Canada voted against the declaration, and then in 2007 on the General Assembly floor in New York when they voted again. They eventually changed their position, and then five years later, we have this incredible act and we have a National Action Plan. To me, it’s an incredibly positive thing that should be turned to and said, “Yes, look, we’re a leader in this.” When I speak at the Human Rights Council before the other countries, I highlight that and I encourage other nations to follow Canada and develop that. Whatever the concerns were in 2006 did not come to fruition. It did not break apart the territorial integrity of the country. It did not stop certain types of development. It actually created stronger relationships. It created these bridges that allowed people to have deep conversations about Indigenous issues, Indigenous rights and to see where we could go with things like clean drinking water, housing and other areas that were important for Indigenous peoples.
Senator Coyle: So your analysis is that, basically, the system is calcified. The people in the system have not been given what they need to be given in terms of education, et cetera, in order for them to change the old ways of doing things, because there has to be a new way or this is never going to take off.
You talked about the importance of the Department of Justice and it playing a key role with other departments. Could you expand what you intended by that?
Mr. Nicholls: The Department of Justice is the department that’s leading the National Action Plan and the implementation, so they’re doing most of the consultation, reaching out and helping to set some of those standards and helping with some of the training. This summer, I probably met with them 15 times to talk about the national Indigenous Justice Strategy. I’m going to meet with them again this week. Then it’s to talk about their developing what consultation and cooperation means in the development of legislation. So we’re talking with them in areas like that.
They’re at the forefront of developing what that implementation is going to be like. They’re very positive and are reaching out. That’s a good sign. That’s where we want to go; that’s the direction. We need to all stay informed and set the best standards possible to ensure that it’s easier to implement and we have fewer issues later and don’t have to go to court or try and seek those rights to be reaffirmed again, even though they’re already affirmed now, but to try and get them repeatedly done that way, which just wastes resources and time. I think we have a great relationship to start, and we need to build upon that.
Senator Coyle: Training, education — you mentioned them; I mentioned them — for civil servants and for judges, and training that’s co-created or co-developed. You’ve talked about training in what UNDRIP is and what the rights are — all of those sorts of things. At what levels and in what areas of the civil service do you see the priorities being for that training? I should probably know this, but is there already a comprehensive assessment of what needs to be done with that kind of training and rolling it out according to priority, both in departments and levels and functions of civil servants?
Mr. Nicholls: In the Indigenous Justice Strategy process was the first time that I saw the Department of Justice’s presentation of what they thought the declaration meant. As an Indigenous group and as Indigenous peoples, as part of the coalition, we were very anxious to find out what is being said about it. We know what we see. Since we’ve been there for 40 years negotiating this at the UN and then working with Canada to create the national act and the action plan, it was very important for us to try and see what’s being said about it. I’ve sat in on different ministries as they’ve given little tidbits to try to get an idea, but then when I see the whole thing, I can assess it. That’s what we wanted to be a part of. Those who know Indigenous rights, know what this declaration is and know the law well wanted to be a part of that development process to ensure that everything is there so we know there is consistency in understanding.
When we talk about consultation and cooperation, we know that the standard from the expert mechanism says that when we implement that within a state, it should include free, prior and informed consent. It should include a high standard of understanding and cooperation that is ongoing. So we want to ensure that when that is implemented within the country, that that’s understood. We’re there to be involved. We’ve always said that we’re there to help, to make legislation better and to work together on our relations between each other, so that’s kind of where we’re going with all that.
The Chair: To clarify, Mr. Nicholls, is the concern that the Department of Justice, whose lawyers advise other federal departments, is proposing a very narrow interpretation of the UNDRIP Act? If so, why do you think there might be resistance?
Mr. Nicholls: I’m not sure. I haven’t heard what their lawyers have said, so I’m not sure the level of whether it’s narrow or what have you. I work cooperatively with all the lawyers I meet in the Department of Justice and expand upon how we see the declaration. It’s important that we have those conversations and very deep conversations of what those implementations or rights should be. I haven’t seen anyone define it in a narrow or constricting way that would be contrary. Unfortunately, I have seen some bodies that are not at the same level of the language of the declaration, so some words within the declaration have changed because they don’t have that deep understanding. That’s probably the only thing that I’ve seen.
To be fair, I was just at the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women to talk about Canada’s periodic review. It’s their fourth year there. When we were there, we had probably the largest Indigenous representation. Canada brought an incredible delegation with both a representative from Nova Scotia and Quebec as well to join them and to talk about women’s rights and Indigenous rights within the country. I think, though, that on the next day, they’re meeting with the national human rights commissions, but I didn’t see Canada there. I think that voice is missing there.
Senator Martin: First of all, I just wanted to say thank you and to thank your late father, Kenneth Nicholls, for his service in Korea. Myself and others of Korean descent believe that we would not be here had it not been for the incredible service and sacrifices made. My thanks to your late father.
My first question is regarding the coalition itself. I know it’s a non-partisan group of Indigenous peoples and human rights organizations that promotes the full and effective implementation of UNDRIP. That’s a huge mandate. Would you explain how the coalition works with various nations and groups? What have you been doing within Canada? Obviously, you have great expertise, but I want to understand the important role of the coalition and what you’ve done to date.
Mr. Nicholls: The coalition brought together many of the people that have been advocating for Indigenous rights, both internationally and nationally, for a number of years. The membership will include people from Amnesty International Canada, the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council. It will include people from our Indigenous groups from B.C., from my area in Quebec and other parts of the country, as well as some expertise, some people that have been for many years advocating in Geneva from Kahnawake and other places. It is a collection of people from right across the country who understand what these rights are, who advocate for them and who make joint statements.
For the permanent forum or the expert mechanism or on key events that are happening in Canada, we’ll come together and agree on what should be said, what should be released into the public, and say, “What can we do?” Then we’ll organize other meetings in preparation. If we’re going to meet with the Department of Canadian Heritage, we’ll have pre-discussions to talk about areas that they would like to discuss and different aspects of the Canadian government.
The coalition is really a conglomeration of many Indigenous and other human rights organizations that want to put forward a strong action plan and put together concrete actions that different bodies that we meet can do.
Senator Martin: I see you at that high level, and you’re coordinating, but we have also heard from specific nations and other groups. It seems that when it comes to understanding UNDRIP as well as the implementation process, everyone is at a very different stage. It’s quite a big task. I don’t know if you have any comments based on the work that you’ve done in the coalition about that. For me to try and wrap my head around what’s happened across Canada, this is a monumental effort.
Mr. Nicholls: Yes. Some of the strengths of the coalition have been that some of the members have been doing this for more than 40-some years and they have helped prepare arguments that go to the Supreme Court of Canada and different cases when coalition members are advocating for their rights or that prep them for meetings that may be provincially, nationally or internationally. There is a lot of preparation and wisdom there. There are many years of experience, wisdom and expertise. One of our lawyers was there in 1982 negotiating Sections 35 and 25 with Canada. Then he was there for the International Labour Organization, or ILO, Convention 169 and a part of the working group on Indigenous populations for more than a decade. It’s a depth of knowledge there and wanting to make sure that, when we have the opportunity to speak, that we’re very well prepared.
Senator Martin: In the coalition’s submission earlier this year, it stated the following:
There is a lack of mechanism for oversight, evaluation and accountability that is either independent of government or properly positioned to work on a whole-of-government basis rather than working within the confines of a specific department.
Earlier there was a question about the role of the Department of Justice. Would you further unpack that quote for me in terms of what is needed in addition to what there already is?
Mr. Nicholls: We have the National Action Plan and the act. Part of that is to say that, in Canada, how do we make sure that implementation occurs and that concrete actions are taken? We want monitoring and oversight to make sure that the government and others are following through with what has been agreed to in the national act and the action plan and other things. That is the monitoring mechanism that we’re talking about: to have a tribunal like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal but an Indigenous one that’s an independent body that’s able to monitor those rights within Canada when violations occur or are upheld or affirmed, wherever they occur.
It really is that next stage, and I think the Government of Canada is waiting. They want to first introduce the action plan and policies and regulations, and then they’re going to work on that in the next year. What the coalition is saying is that we really need that now as we’re developing everything to say we need to build this body that’s going to ensure that these rights are affirmed within Canada and are followed by the government and the ministries and everyone else.
Senator Martin: You seem to have this long-term vision. You have the 40-year experience. Government needs to catch up to you. There’s a road map. You can envision so much of what needs to be done. I have more questions, but I’ll wait for the second round.
Senator Boniface: Is there anywhere else in the world that is ahead of us on this issue and would have best practices that we should be looking to?
Mr. Nicholls: I think that’s a good question. When I go to the United Nations and I talk with the different ambassadors and the different delegations that are Indigenous, I always advocate for Canada because that’s what I know best. But are there countries that may have good practices?
On the panel that I was on two weeks ago for the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights invited me to speak on how modern-day treaties, legislation and court cases could lead to implementation of the declaration. When I spoke there, the expert mechanism chair for New Zealand spoke, and then, of course, the new ambassador for Guatemala, who was a special rapporteur, spoke, and then a special judge for Colombia, where they have these special courts recognizing Indigenous rights, spoke about these new implementations that they’re doing in Colombia. I know that Colombia and South America have this initiative where they’re looking at more healing and restorative justice models. They’re getting together regularly and sharing information among all the South American and Latin American countries to say what the best practices there are. I haven’t had the opportunity to go there, but I think there is something there definitely worth looking at.
When we look at the over-representation of Indigenous peoples within Canadian prisons, I’ve looked at the Norwegian model, which is considered one of the best in the world, and when I talked with the Norwegian experts who designed the system, I said, “Where did you get those ideas?” They said, “We came to Canada and looked at the models being developed,” and they went back and developed them over there, but we never developed them fully. They took from us and went back over there and developed this new one where you’re not stigmatized in the prison; you’re taught. You learn something. You don’t wear different clothes than the guards and you use more of the outdoors. They have a different approach. In Norway, the experts tell us when there’s not enough room in the prison, they send you a letter saying, sorry, your space is not available yet, but we’ll get in contact when your bed is ready. They have a whole different approach.
In the Navajo Nation, they just did a reformation of their detention facilities under Delores Greyeyes, who has a master’s degree in social work, and she reorganized how those prisons were doing. I’m going to go down and look at it. I teach Indigenous constitutional law at the University of Arizona in January. I’m going to go there and spend some time and see what kind of best practices she may have implemented.
Definitely, there’s some best practices for us to look at out there.
Senator Boniface: I was thinking of the notion of how we move this out through government and accountability. You know, I worked in government for a long time. What measures get done are often attached to performance agreements. Is that one of the things the government is considering in terms of deputy minister, assistant deputy minister, certain jobs that need to be done? Would you see that as important in terms of how you get the message down through the organization and complete a process of training your staff and such like?
Mr. Nicholls: Yes. I think that, with any initiative, the deputy ministers are key within the government. They’re going to meet, and they have the Privy Council meetings, and they discuss big issues. That’s where a lot of initiatives are done. If Indigenous issues here went to the deputy minister level as well, that would promote more action or more concrete measures being done.
I also sit on a national board in Canada that advises the government on opioid and substance use and abuse. Often, we attend those deputy minister meetings with the provincial and territorial governments and invite a deputy minister to sit with our board and to talk with us, because it is very key to have those linkages. I think it would be important in this case as well.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for coming before us.
I want to begin by recognizing your efforts and the efforts of your organization and the advocacy of helping to move this over 40 years and taking a keen interest over the last 25 years with respect to UNDRIP and the eventual adoption of it.
You mentioned a number of things I want to review. You mentioned the slow progress on the Action Plan. I would imagine this is all evidenced through your networks. You also mentioned the absence of consultation and cooperation that is quite apparent and the need for a meaningful standard. You talked about guidelines and policies relating to research and consultation. You mentioned an independent Indigenous rights mechanism, something that is co-developed, fluent in Indigenous law, adequately funded, can make binding decisions and things of that nature.
What I’m curious about, and what everyone is curious about, is implementation and concrete actions here. You talk about best practices with respect to consultation and cooperation. I think you referenced the New Zealand experience — I could be wrong on that — just earlier in a dialogue you had. When it comes to implementation and concrete actions, can you highlight to us some of those best practices that you have experienced?
Mr. Nicholls: In regard to?
Senator Prosper: We can consider consultation and cooperation being one of them.
Mr. Nicholls: Sure. Some of the coalition members have said that it has not been inclusive. Myself, I have been consulted and cooperated with, and I have reached out and been able to work with the government on the national Indigenous Justice Strategy and on the co-development of other things. I’ve sat in meetings where we’ve discussed the National Action Plan and different aspects related to that. My experience has been mixed. In the coalition, some members are a little different, where they haven’t had that opportunity to be consulted. So it’s not equal across the board, but for myself it’s there.
We do know that with the National Action Plan, although it’s supposed to be an evergreen, growing tree, is not open to change right at this present moment, even if it’s promoted. It’s not changing at the moment. They said, “Just wait a little bit longer. We have to get things going a little more.” Some of that has been a little slow in the experience, but overall, it is an exercise in relationship building. In the past, we haven’t had that equality across the table where we are invited to discuss, to dialogue and to build something or co-develop something together. The national act and the UN Declaration have provided that to an extent, so that changed a bit over the last little while, but not everyone has seen that equally because I think government is trying to figure out who should be across the table completely. It’s much easier when dealing with me because I come from an Indigenous government, so it’s very clear that I’m a rights holder and I’m going to have discussions, and I appreciate that.
Senator Martin: Senator Prosper’s list summarized some of the key things that I was wanting to find out about, but in relation to the progress report that was released in 2024 based on the Action Plan, I was wondering what recommendations you have related to implementing the priorities of the Action Plan. What are the next steps that you see would that be very important to be considered?
Mr. Nicholls: As I’ve stated, it’s very important to be inclusive and to have the opportunity to work together. It’s also very important to have those guidelines established so that when co-developing legislation or things that may impact Indigenous rights, that people are at the table.
That’s one of the things that we advocate the most at the United Nations. When we’re talking about big issues such as climate change, it’s very important that Indigenous peoples be there because we’re so interdependent. The catastrophic forest fires that we’re seeing in Northern Canada were in my territory last year, and they were going across and hitting Lisbon and they were getting the bad air quality, and they were forcing people to stay inside in New York. They were hitting different parts of the world. We are so interdependent. It is important for us to be there for certain issues like climate change, which impacts us significantly, especially when we have these forest fires in the middle of our territory that last all summer long. Just to be at the table is an important step, to be invited there, to be allowed to contribute and to have a voice there. It’s very important, that whole idea of how we tackle things together. Indigenous peoples want to contribute. We’ve had generations where we’ve used the environment in a sustainable way. Our traditional economies respect the fact that future and current generations need to draw resources from it. Our perspective and mentality and beliefs are built on a sustainable platform within the country. We can contribute to the conversation. We know we can. The United Nations and the Secretary-General and other nations have said that Indigenous peoples give a valued contribution to the discussions of key issues.
We know that Canada signed on to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. We want to tackle poverty, housing, clean drinking water and all these other areas, but we need to be a part of the conversation. We need to be able to contribute and build those relationships where we can freely work with government on that.
Senator Martin: Regarding the coalition, do you have representation of Métis groups and Inuit groups? Is it a cross-section of all the groups?
Mr. Nicholls: Yes. There are various Métis groups that are in the coalition, and, as I said, there is the AFN and different Indigenous groups and coalitions that come from the East Coast, from Nova Scotia, right across to B.C. There is that there within the coalition.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I am going to go a little bit off topic, but it’s still about the rights of Indigenous people.
We had Wilton Littlechild here recently. Every time I meet that man, he makes a big impact on me. He is just always ahead. We talked with him about UNDRIP, which was, of course, his life’s work, getting Canada to sign on and what not. But now that we’ve signed on, it’s not that he isn’t interested in its implementation, because of course he is, but he was talking with us about the Organization of American States, or OAS, and the American declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We didn’t get enough time to ask him about why that’s the next frontier for Canada, what needs to be done and how that relates to, frankly, where we are with UNDRIP and the implementation of UNDRIP. You’ve mentioned several of the members of the OAS. Canada, of course, is a member, and Canada’s former ambassador to the OAS is a senator and the chair of our Foreign Affairs Committee. It’s been on my mind since Wilton Littlechild was here and challenged us with this next frontier. We don’t want to abandon the current frontier and the implementation of this current frontier, but is there anything you want to let us know about from your world — I think you come from the same world — that we should know about the status and how it relates to where we are with our current concerns around the implementation of UNDRIP?
Mr. Nicholls: Well, the Organization of American States is a different world. When I was in Arizona, I worked on some course cases in Nicaragua and Belize with the OAS and in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica. A nation has to agree to the jurisdiction or ruling of the court, so it’s not absolute, but the declaration there took a number of years to do. When the declaration was read, Canada didn’t object, so it was understood that Canada was okay with it. It’s a regional agreement. The UN declaration is an international one that covers the whole globe. The OAS just deals with the Americas. It’s similar, but there are a few differences or nuances. The United Nations declaration doesn’t have an inter-American court on human rights. It doesn’t have an inter-American commission on human rights that reviews or writes reports, so it’s a little different.
I would say that members of the coalition have written to Canada, I think, twice this year to talk about Canada’s stance, to say that it should be endorsing the American declaration on the rights, but it has not. The answer from government has been that they’re focusing on the UN declaration and they don’t know if they agree to the American declaration. There still is that hesitation, and of course, there is a national implementation and action plan on the UN declaration, so we completely understand that, but there still is that idea to say, “Well, why are we not including the American declaration if we’re on board with the UN declaration as well?”
Senator Coyle: Thank you. It’s something that I wanted to know more about. That helps.
The Chair: The time for this panel is complete, and I wish to thank you again, Mr. Nicholls, for joining us this evening and providing us with some really good testimony. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to our clerk within seven days.
Before going in camera, please allow me, colleagues, to briefly remind you about the Voices of Youth Indigenous Leaders 2024 event that will take place next week. This event recognizes the outstanding achievements of First Nations, Métis and Inuit youth. Every year, the Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples invites Indigenous youth aged 18 to 35 to share their leadership experiences, stories and Calls to Action to help inform senators’ work. Once again, this year, selected candidates were invited to Ottawa to participate in activities, meet with senators and appear as official witnesses before the committee on October 30. I hope many of you will join us to welcome them in person.
That brings us to the end of the public portion of our meeting. We will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)