THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 2, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:03 a.m. [ET] to examine matters related to the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples, which flows from the honour of the Crown derived from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. There are many women senators here today and we have two warrior senators. Before we begin, it is important to repeat, on behalf of the little gems behind us, that interpretation and translation must be done in accordance with the standards. It is important to use the tools provided by the Senate, meaning the earpieces for interpretation, and not to put the earpieces near the microphone. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Of course [Innu-aimun spoken] the Anishinaabe people, an ancestral territory for millennia, full of history and relations. Obviously, it is also the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people. It has long welcomed other First Nations, Métis and Inuit from across Turtle Island.
[English]
I am Michèle Audette, and I am Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I would like to invite the committee members who are participating today to introduce themselves. I will start with my good warrior senator, Senator Prosper.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper from Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Pate: Good morning. Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Senator Karetak-Lindell: Good morning. Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Nunavut.
Senator McCallum: Welcome. Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10 territory, Manitoba region.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Good morning, Bernadette Clement, from Ontario, Cornwall specifically, which is on the traditional land of the Mohawks of Akwasasne.
[English]
Senator Francis: Good morning. Brian Francis, Epekwitk, P.E.I.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would also like to welcome Senator Prosper’s guests who are with us today, as well as senators’ staff members.
[English]
Welcome to those who are watching us across Canada on ParlVU.
Today, we are examining any matters related to the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples, which flows from the honour of the Crown derived from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
[Translation]
Today, for this first panel of witnesses, we have the pleasure of welcoming via video conference, members from the Métis National Council: Victoria Pruden; President, accompanied by Cassidy Caron, Chief of Staff. In person, we welcome Alyssa Buttineau, Policy Advisor, Legislative Affairs.
Thank you for joining us today.
[English]
We are ready to hear opening remarks. We have five minutes maximum per witness, and opening remarks will be followed by questions from the senators.
Victoria Pruden, President, Métis National Council: Good morning. [Indigenous language spoken.]
I want to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today and acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am participating virtually from the traditional unceded and unsurrendered territories of the SENĆOŦEN- and Lekwungen-speaking people closest to the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations here in Victoria, British Columbia.
[Indigenous language spoken.] My name is Victoria Pruden, and I am very proud to be present today as President of the Métis National Council, or MNC.
I am a proud Michif Iskwew, a Métis woman, a mother and a nokum with deep ancestral roots from across the Métis Nation, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta primarily. I share this because, for the Métis Nation, our rights, governance, culture and relationship to the land are inseparable, and that is the perspective I bring to this discussion today.
I am here on behalf of the Métis National Council, which has represented the Métis Nation at the national and international level since 1983 and works in coordination with our governing members, including the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Otipemisiwak Métis Government, who represent Métis citizens and their section 35 rights.
We appreciate the committee undertaking this study because the duty to consult and accommodate continues to be one of the most significant mechanisms through which Indigenous Peoples engage with governments on decisions affecting their rights, communities and futures. The duty to consult and accommodate is a foundational part of Canada’s constitutional framework and is grounded, as the honourable member said, in the honour of the Crown. It is intended to ensure that government decisions do not adversely impact Indigenous rights without meaningful engagement.
For the Métis Nation, the duty to consult is not simply a legal process. It is closely tied to broader questions of recognition, relationship building and how Indigenous governments participate in decision making that affects their citizens and communities.
Over time, both the legal and policy landscapes surrounding consultations have evolved significantly. In addition to section 35 obligations, Canada has committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples through the UNDA. The UNDA requires the federal government to “. . . consult and cooperate with . . . .” Indigenous Peoples to ensure laws and policies are consistent with UNDRIP. In particular, UNDRIP Articles 18 and 19 reinforce the rights of Indigenous Peoples to participate in decision making through their own representative institutions and require governments to seek free, prior and informed consent before adopting measures that may affect them.
These reflect important shifts away from consultations as being a primarily procedural requirement and toward engagements that are more collaborative, transparent and capable of shaping outcomes.
There is a growing recognition that consultations should not occur only after decisions are substantially advanced; Indigenous governments must be involved earlier with the information, capacity and opportunity necessary to meaningfully influence decisions before they are finalized.
For the Métis Nation, meaningful consultations must be distinctions-based and grounded in Métis governance structures. Métis governments are rights-bearing governments with responsibilities to their citizens, and consultation processes must engage the appropriate representative institutions at both the regional and national levels.
Consultation must also occur earlier and in more substantive ways. Too often, Métis governments are engaged only after key policy directions or decisions have already been established, limiting the ability to meaningfully influence outcomes and creating frustration for all parties involved.
The Métis Nation has advanced co-development as an important framework for improving how governments work together on laws, policies, programs and regulatory initiatives that impact Métis rights and interests. The Métis Nation’s co‑development principles emphasize that Métis governments should not simply be asked to react to decisions after they are made but be involved from the outset in shaping priorities, identifying shared objectives, developing policy options and informing implementation approaches.
In practice, meaningful consultation and co-development involve early identification of issues and shared priorities, structured and ongoing dialogue between governments, transparent information sharing, collaborative drafting and policy development, recognition of Indigenous governance and decision-making processes and sustained capacity support to enable full participation.
These experiences demonstrate that meaningful consultation is not simply about process; it’s about relationships. Successful engagement depends upon early and ongoing dialogue, transparency, mutual respect and ensuring that Métis governments have the institutional capacity, technical expertise and governance infrastructure necessary to participate effectively in complex decision-making processes.
At the same time, significant challenges remain. Lately, Métis governments often experience late-stage engagement, barriers to accessing information, capacity limitations and inconsistencies across jurisdictions. These challenges directly affect whether consultation processes are experienced as credible, meaningful and capable of influencing outcomes for Métis governments and communities.
This committee’s study presents an important opportunity to consider how consultation processes can continue evolving in practice to better reflect Indigenous self-determination, modern legal obligations and Canada’s broader reconciliation commitments.
Kinanâskomitinawow. Thank you. We look forward to your questions. I want to thank my colleagues Alyssa Buttineau and Cassidy Caron for joining me today. We look forward to your questions. [Indigenous language spoken.]
[Translation]
The Chair: [Innu-aimun spoken], thank you very much. We will now proceed with questions.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Good morning, and thank you all for being here. Hi, Cassidy; I haven’t seen you in a while.
To start with, what role do national groups, like the MNC, play in consultations? Is there a balance, or how do those who are consulting strike a reasonable balance between engaging national groups and local communities?
Ms. Pruden: I’m going to answer first, then see if my colleagues want to jump in after.
Right now, our legislative affairs branch monitors and receives invitations to consult on a variety of policy issues. We then mobilize as quickly as possible to ensure that the Métis governments that we’re working closely with, including our governing members, have the opportunity to find out about the consultation timing, participation and logistics. Then we mobilize from there.
Senator Sorensen: Do you play a facilitating role?
Ms. Pruden: Yes, we definitely play a convening, facilitating and information-sharing role to ensure that, when there is a national opportunity for consultation, we’re flowing that out to our partners as quickly as possible.
In practice, we’re seeing now that those opportunities are often — I’ll give a recent example: We had an opportunity for youth participation on a consultation, the notice for which came in late on a Friday afternoon for a very early-morning consultation on a Monday morning. Our teams mobilized to get representation of elected youth officials to participate in that committee hearing.
Cassidy, I’m going to see if you have anything to add.
Cassidy Caron, Chief of Staff, Métis National Council: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for having me. I’m here to support President Pruden.
Absolutely everything the president just said is absolutely correct: The MNC and national Indigenous organizations function as that facilitator or that one track in that the federal government will come to us first, still not understanding the consultation protocols of Métis governments, which are the rights-bearing Métis governments that represent those rights-bearing section 35 citizens. They are the proper ones to be doing consultations with when it comes to duty to consult, but the Métis National Council has the contacts and knowledge to connect the federal government — and, sometimes, even provincial governments — to those federal governments to share those consultation protocols when necessary.
Ms. Pruden: I will add that, for the first time, we’re trying out a pre-engagement mechanism that we’re calling the Métis Policy Forum, in which we’re bringing together five out of seven Métis governments to do some collaborative visioning and priority-setting together. In this instance, we’re hosting a forum on national housing policy, with the participation of five Métis governments, to be able to do some pre-work and set some joint priorities.
This is a new forum that we’re trying out to maximize our role as convenors and shapers of policy and research to really play that role as a national collaborative force, unifying the voices of Métis governments and Métis policy-makers.
Senator Sorensen: That’s interesting — and proactive for sure.
How do you think consultations should be approached if there is more than one Indigenous community impacted by a project, particularly in cases where those communities disagree?
Ms. Pruden: That is certainly a timely question, given what’s been happening of late across our national landscape.
Immediately, my response is that if distinctions-based consultations are applied in such scenarios, it is possible for consultations to take place with impacted First Nations communities and leadership, as well as impacted representatives of Métis governments, locals and regions where a project may impact many aspects of economic and social life in those areas.
It is an issue that can be approached in creative ways to minimize conflicts. Taking that distinction-based approach may require a little effort on the front end, but it is definitely possible.
Certainly, our team can send out some proactive supplementary information on the consultation agreements that are currently in place with the federal government and our governing members. There is a way that this can be done — and done well.
Senator Francis: There might be a little overlap with Senator Sorensen’s great question, but I’ll ask anyway. Given that the legal duty to consult on matters that fall under federal jurisdiction rests primarily with the federal Crown and cannot be fully offloaded to provincial bodies, how can Indigenous governments ensure that relying on provincial processes does not breach Canada’s obligations under section 35?
Ms. Pruden: That is an excellent question. I’m going to respond, and then I’m going to ask my colleagues to weigh in as well.
As you know, the Métis governments have to maintain those provincial relationships. They’re different across the landscape of Canada, depending on which province the Métis governments are located in.
To my mind, the consultation agreements that have been set up with the federal government and signed off and are in alignment with section 35 and also with obligations under UNDRIP tend to be pretty clear. In terms of a conflict between provinces and the federal duties to consult, I don’t have a recent example, but I’m going to defer to my colleagues to see if they want to jump in or weigh in on that. I can think of some potential areas where those might be in conflict, but I’m going to just turn to colleagues, Alyssa and Cassidy. We can also take some time to reflect on this, particularly with a little engagement with our intergovernmental teams as well. Cassidy, I’m going to turn to you for just a quick moment.
Ms. Caron: Yes, I might turn to Alyssa to support this one.
Ms. Pruden: Sure.
Alyssa Buttineau, Policy Advisor, Legislative Affairs, Métis National Council: Thank you, everyone, for having us today. It is quite an honour. This is something that, certainly, I see us doing some more research on and looking into.
When it comes to something that the Métis Nation has developed, we have looked into our co-development principles specifically. This guides us into having a meaningful and good way of collaborating on these challenges and conflicts. And I think following that course of action would certainly alleviate some of those conflicts. But, as President Pruden pointed out, our consultation agreements between the Métis governments and the federal government set up a very clear process on how that consultation should occur. We are happy to do some additional research in collaboration with our Métis governments on what that could look like in practice with some examples.
Ms. Pruden: Senator, just one last response here: We’re going to flow through to the committee the federal consultation agreements. As we indicated, the potential for conflict between provincial consultation and federal consultation is something we can look into and certainly send a brief on over with the approval of our governing members. So thank you so much for that excellent and very timely question, given the political landscape in Canada at present.
Senator Francis: Thank you very much.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all our witnesses. I enjoyed hearing your perspective, Ms. Pruden, on the approaches your organization has taken with respect to consultation. I have a couple questions, but the first one I want to sort of get into a bit. You mentioned free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, flowing out of the federal legislation involving UNDRIP — or UNDRIPA, as some people say. Can you provide a definition, from your perspective, of “free, prior and informed consent”?
Ms. Pruden: I’m going to respond quite authentically, and we can send our formal briefings on this.
In terms of the work that’s happening in the Métis Nation and the consultation agreements that are in place, free, prior and informed consent is definitely based in a lot of the principles that I mentioned in my opening remarks. For free, prior and informed consent to be authentically aligned, even just on the face of it, there needs to be a reasonable timeline. There needs to be a distinctions-based engagement. Really, as we stressed in the opening comments, engagement needs to happen earlier and be sincere and authentic in terms of the timeline for Métis governments to be able to meaningfully engage citizens, their communities, their regions and their elected representatives. We need time to adequately and meaningfully provide consultation.
What we’ve been seeing lately is we’re coming to consultation processes and wanting to be excellent partners. That can be done, we believe, with a bit more reasonable approach in terms of free, prior and informed consent. That means engaging earlier, transparent information and the opportunity to truly engage with our citizens and communities.
I’m going to turn to Cassidy and Alyssa to add their comments as well.
Ms. Caron: Absolutely. As President Pruden mentioned, the consultation agreements that the Métis governments have with the federal government outline what is expected to meet free, prior and informed consent as well. So the negotiations between the federal government and these Métis governments have considered just what that means to Métis governments as well. We’ll make sure that you have those pieces, and maybe Alyssa has that detail for you right now. If not, we can send that along.
Ms. Buttineau: I can certainly send that information along. We do have quite a lot of work that has been done on free, prior and informed consent. We’re definitely tying that into the UNDA section 5, on consultation and cooperation, because it broadens that as well to what is actually entailed to get the free, prior and informed consent — specifically, as President Pruden mentioned, ensuring that there is no duress and Indigenous governments have the time, capacity and support to fulsomely engage in that, in consultation and engagement, and that it is ongoing and knowing that consent is an ongoing practice.
Senator Prosper: Thank you. I would certainly appreciate your comments and responses to the question. Just to delve a bit further because I’m sure you have heard publicly from various organizations and people across the country — even governments — there is a bit of concern when people hear the term “FPIC.” They try to equate it to some type of veto that Indigenous Peoples will have to certain processes and systems. So, just as a point of clarity, to come back to this and your interpretation of FPIC, does it include or consider a veto element? Could we get a bit more clarity on that?
Ms. Pruden: Certainly, in our role as a national Indigenous organization, we exist to support and facilitate the voices of our elected Métis governments and their representatives. The messages that we are flowing forward have certainly been that the approach of Métis governments that we work with is one of wanting to collaborate and one of wanting to facilitate and not necessarily be a barrier to, for example, major projects. To be completely transparent, we have not had discussions about the intersections between a potential veto and free, prior and informed consent.
Again, this is something that we need to take back to our elected officials, those whom we support and represent. But we’re certainly focusing on the more fulsome engagement needed, and I am not going to put words in our elected leaders’ mouths with respect to veto, but this is something I would certainly like to get back to you on.
And, yes, we have been watching very carefully what is happening across the country in terms of the potential for veto.
Cassidy and Alyssa, I will turn to you for a moment.
Ms. Caron: Again, veto is not explicitly mentioned, but the duty to consult, which leads to free, prior and informed consent, is grounded in the honour of the Crown and remains a foundational constitutional obligation. Making sure that information comes directly to Métis governments in a way that is understandable to them, that there is transparency and accountability and that communities are engaged and not coerced or pressured will often lead to favourable outcomes.
However, the consent piece is very important. It should not occur unless explicit permission is given from those impacted individuals due to this.
Again, as President Pruden said, the explicit mention of veto is not necessarily in our vocabulary at this moment.
Senator Prosper: May I ask a further question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Prosper: I appreciate your answers.
The other question I have seeks to delve a bit into the distinctions-based comment you mentioned, Ms. Pruden. It gets back to Senator Sorensen’s question about representative groups and identifiable territories. We know there are treaty territories, unextinguished Aboriginal title and, certainly, territory as described by the area within your organization in terms of the activities that take place through members on the land and the rights ascribed to the Métis People through the Constitution.
Looking at that intersection between treaty-based rights and distinctions-based rights, as you referenced and as a consideration of government, how do you see those two working together?
Let’s just take a specific project that your organization has an interest in, in terms of the activities from your members versus a neighbouring community that has a treaty-based right. How would that scenario work out from a consultation perspective?
Ms. Pruden: What an excellent question. We had a great meeting yesterday with members of our governing member intergovernmental and consultation tables.
The first thing I will say — I’m just going to call back 10 years ago to the Daniels decision and the extensive report prepared by Mr. Charles Isaacs. I need to just contextualize my comments by reminding us that, in that legal analysis post‑Daniels, the federal government’s position acknowledged that, truly, there is no legal hierarchy of rights. Therefore, when we talk about distinctions-based consultations, I will use an example from yesterday. We were talking about consultation with regard to forestry projects. One of our Métis governments reminded us of a very recent example where a project was allowed to go forward that involved a lot of clear-cutting that impacted — and this is a great example — many of our traditional Métis community members and business owners who are still very much living a traditional existence that is dependent on their trap lines.
In some instances, that project, for example, didn’t mitigate emergency management or climate-based concerns, and the brush left over after the clear-cut certainly contributed to the prevalence of wildfires in the region. That impacted all the animals and plant life, as well as the very ability for very traditional Métis trappers to be able to successfully maintain, utilize and effectively do the business of trapping that their families have done for generations.
That’s an example.
When we talk about distinctions-based consultation, First Nations in that area are impacted, as well. Distinctions-based consultations on environmental, geographical and economic impacts when it comes to projects still need to be considered. Those are livelihoods, health and quality of life. When our people are fishing, trapping, hunting and utilizing water sources in their daily lives, there are many ways that Métis families, individuals and businesses are impacted.
While what comes out in consultations in a distinctions-based way may be different, I believe they are still relevant, of course. It might look different than the legal and treaty-grounded perspectives of First Nations in the vicinity of the same projects, but I think there is a lot of value in terms of impacts to Métis people, communities and governments in those areas.
That’s one example.
How does a project in a territory impact traditional ways of life, health, clean water and access to be able to sustain ourselves, particularly when it comes to lands-based activities, like trapping; and food-security activities, including hunting, fishing and access to clean water that feed our communities? Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Ms. Pruden.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for this important discussion.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
When we look at the doctrine, policy and practice of the duty to consult, of national importance for Canada in terms of the future direction of Aboriginal law — when I talk about Aboriginal law, I am talking a lot about pre-contact law that existed pre-contact. The Métis came post-contact.
My question is around the engagement and the relationship between First Nations and Métis. When you look at the relationships, the First Nations have never ceded land. We look at existing land claims that have been there for years. We look at the different rights that we have. Even the term “distinctions-based” carries with it differences. There are differences in the rights that we have.
I wanted to look at how you engage with First Nations, bearing all of this in mind and bearing in mind that the duty to consult does not affect all parts of the country and all Aboriginal Peoples in the same ways.
What is the relationship that you have with the First Nations?
Ms. Pruden: Thank you, honourable senator, for that question.
I am going to start off by first mentioning that I have been very interested in traditional Métis laws and practices. Within my own relational accountability, I was born in Amiskwacîwâskahikan. I come from a very long, grounded family, originally from Manitoba, who travelled to Saskatchewan. We were very immersed in Batoche and had deep roots in Alberta.
I will talk about one of our foundational principles that is woven in, around and through Métis laws, values and natural laws. That is wâhkôhtowin. There are geographical differences across all Métis governments across this homeland, but I’m going to just speak from my family perspectives and to what I am observing and hearing in the province of Saskatchewan — just from a personal standpoint.
The natural law of wâhkôhtowin is shared by many of our nehiyawak brothers, sisters and governments. Wâhkôhtowin compels us to recognize that not only are we extended family who need to treat each other as such but we have an inherent responsibility to lands, waters, animals, plants, insects and all of Creation.
When we examine the early emergence of some of what would be called “Métis Traditional Laws,” there are intersections that come from our matrilineal, matriarchal lines. Our Indigeneity did not spring forth; as my Elder Maria Campbell would say, “We were not hatched on a rock in a Petri dish or in a test tube.” We are Indigenous People in the country because of our deep roots and matrilineal lines, which I very proudly carry as a part of my being every day.
With respect to relationships with First Nations, many of us, including me, have had long-standing relationships of respect, reciprocity and kinship grounded in wâhkôhtowin, particularly in traditional territories where we may share nôhkoms and cápáns. There is a relational accountability that ties us together.
I have had discussions with Wilton Littlechild on this subject many times over the past year, and he reminded me that his aunt was Delia Gray, who is a very prominent Métis leader and matriarch in Alberta. When I speak with our Elders about this, I think there is work to be done in the spirit of wâhkôhtowin, of collaboration and of taking a look at how we can, in a practical sense, increase the quality of those relationships, the quality of communication and practical opportunities for there to be more alignment, respect and unity.
Before I get too far ahead of myself while speaking from the heart here, I will pause and defer to my colleagues Cassidy and Alyssa for any comments on that.
Ms. Caron: I have nothing to add.
The Chair: Thank you, because we have a final senator for this panel to ask a question.
Senator Clement: Good morning. It is good to see all of you. Thank you for your testimony and for speaking personally, as well. You bring expertise but also bring lived experience, and I want to acknowledge that.
I’m a former municipal politician, city councillor and mayor. I want to continue along with where Senator Sorensen was going. Especially since the pandemic, we have become even more reactive. We are experts at emergency preparedness and not so good at building relationships. That whole reactive-versus-proactive dynamic is complicated.
Please push back on this, but I feel like things are worse than they were. In other words, consultations are happening later, and that’s just getting worse.
Part of the study is to look at best practices. Could you give some examples of where jurisdictions are getting it right? Those would be great to hear about, as well.
President Pruden, you talked about sustained capacity support. Could you lean into that? Obviously, the duty to consult brings a lot of work and obligations that your governments, then, have to participate in, but that requires a lot of work that needs to be recognized. What do you mean by “sustained capacity support”? Is that happening, and what would that look like?
Ms. Pruden: What an excellent question, senator. Thank you so much.
To be completely transparent, as you know, we are moving forward in Canada at such a rapid pace when it comes to the vision for a strengthened and prosperous Canada, primarily looking at opportunities for economic growth and trade, as well as looking at how, logistically, free, prior and informed consent consultations can be done in respectful ways while balancing a timeline that is very in line with rapid speed.
Truly, Métis governments, in terms of being able to respond across all kinds of policy departments, not just economic development, trade, energy, mining and forestry — there are so many demands on our teams. To be quite frank, it is important — and it might be a very solution-focused way in terms of recommendations — to be able to enhance consultation capacity and analysis for Métis governments to be able to respond effectively. For us, that means more bodies in terms of being able to rapidly and effectively engage in consultations across a number of policy areas.
We’re hearing that from our overworked, overtaxed intergovernmental senior policy analysts and consultation leads on an ongoing basis. We have environment and climate change, health, economic development and trade.
I’m going to use trade as an example for one moment. Right now, we’re participating with other Indigenous governments around the world, looking at opportunities to enhance trade policy. We know that trade is a major priority for Canada. Canada is looking at hosting APEC and the Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement, or IPETCA, in 2029. I will use that as a specific example.
There is no capacity; capacity is absolutely an issue. That could be a very meaningful step in terms of resourcing the commitment to excellent fulfillment of free, prior and informed consent and meeting Canada’s obligations with respect to consultations in meaningful ways by ensuring Métis governments have the capacity needed to effectively execute consultations in meaningful ways and not with two days’ notice to have to try to consult, potentially, thousands of people and businesses in an affected region or policy area.
I will leave my comments there. Colleagues, anything to add?
Senator Clement: Is it 2029 when we are hosting?
Ms. Pruden: I believe so. I will follow up on that; I am going from memory here. We can provide some commentary on that.
That’s one very small example where, if there is going to be meaningful participation and engagement of Métis, First Nations and Inuit, we need to ensure there is adequate and respectful capacity to be able to participate. That’s just an example, but it is a meaningful one.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. [Innu-aimun spoken], President Pruden.
[English]
We will wait for your documents, information and links as well as any other best practices for this important study.
Thank you to the three of you for coming here as witnesses to respond and have this exchange with us.
Also, this amazing committee has the opportunity to recommend better practices or better ways to this government to make sure that grassroots organizations or the governments are heard. I’m from a place where groups pretend to speak on my behalf in Quebec and Labrador. If we are able to say to the government, “We hear, we grow and here is what we are proposing,” let’s ensure that the people that speak at those tables or exchange with the federal government are actually rights holders. It is probably emotional or historical, but words are important. We will make sure to honour what you said when you spoke your language. We want to make sure that we write it well in the report so we might have a back-and-forth with your office to ensure that it is what you said and it is also well written.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
[English]
Ms. Pruden: Thank you for the opportunity, senators. Marsee. Mahsi’cho. [Indigenous language spoken.]
[Translation]
The Chair: We will move to the second panel of witnesses we have the pleasure of welcoming around this table.
[English]
I want to say kuei to the witness Paul Irngaut, who was going to speak in Inuktitut. I was ready to listen, but, because of internet connections, we cannot. We can send this to those supposed to connect Canada to remind them that you’re part of this important study. I hope we will find a way, one day, to welcome you back with the proper technology or in this space. We deserve to hear from you. Of course, we have Kilikvak Kabloona, who will read your statement.
From Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., we have Grand Chief Garrison Settee.
[Translation]
He is accompanied by his assistant, Kevin Carlson.
We have a great man from the Lake Simon Anishinabe Nation Council, Chief Lucien Wabanonik.
We also welcome representatives of the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., whom I introduced at the beginning.
Time is precious. We will listen to you attentively, then the senators will have an opportunity to ask you questions.
We will begin with Grand Chief Settee.
[English]
It’s you now. Your French is so good.
[Translation]
Garrison Settee, Grand Chief, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.: Thank you very much. I am delighted to be here, my friends.
[English]
I bring greetings from Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc. territory. As was mentioned, my name is Garrison Settee. I am from the Pimicikamak Cree Nation, the land of the Cree and Dene people. It is my honour to be before the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I am privileged to represent our people. This is a critical issue that we are presenting this morning as it pertains to all the people who live in our North.
I want to say tansi, boozhoo, edlane’te and hello on behalf of the 63,000 First Nations citizens who live on our territory. They are affiliated with the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, Inc., or MKO. I am here to share the views of our people, who live in our territory, on the duty to consult and accommodate and the honour of the Crown.
MKO has 26 years of real-world experience in pursuing the conduct of the duty to consult consistent with the honour of the Crown.
In one example, between August 2007 and June 2009, MKO directly participated in the intensive and successful negotiation and execution of the very first consultation protocol between the Province of Manitoba and any First Nation in Manitoba. This was the June 3, 2009, consultation protocol between the Province of Manitoba and the Northlands Denesuline First Nation. Our Chiefs in assembly passed the resolution Endorsement of Northlands Consultation Protocol as Principles and Process of the Duty to Consult, which endorses the core principles and processes of the Northlands Consultation Protocol. These principles and processes to be applied to all duty-to-consult processes in our territory.
Another example that I bring is that our organization, MKO, on June 18, 2025, wrote to the Prime Minister, the president of the Privy Council, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, all honourable senators and to all members of the House of Commons to urge Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, be amended to include a definition of the duty to consult. It was very critical — very important.
Specifically, MKO proposes that the Building Canada Act be amended by adopting the definition of “duty to consult” at Annex A of the Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult —March 2011. It states:
The duty to consult is an obligation of the government as a whole. In Haida, Taku River and Mikisew Cree, the Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial and federal governments have a legal obligation to consult when the Crown contemplates conduct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights.
So that means every potential major project, energy corridor or critical minerals development in northern Manitoba will be subject to the Crown’s legal obligation to carry out the duty to consult in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown.
Every Crown-First Nation consultation process in our territory must first determine whether the infringements of the twice‑constitutionalized right to hunt, fish, trap and gather for food for support, subsistence and for social and ceremonial purposes can be constitutionally justified further to the tests in R. v. Sparrow. I reiterate that it’s a twice-constitutionalized, obligated right, and I will explain that.
In our experience, MKO has experienced that Canada and Manitoba largely skip over the justification step of a duty-to-consult process. It is also our assessment that governments and developers assume incorrectly that any infringements of acknowledged and constitutionally protected rights are “pre‑justified” and that consultations are really about mitigation and accommodation measures. MKO describes this constitutionally flawed approach to the Crown’s duty to consult consistent with the honour of the Crown as “let’s make a deal.” That is the kind of process that we are dealing with.
It is widely understood and appreciated by Canada and Manitoba or by proponents of major projects and critical mineral developments that paragraph 13 of the schedule of the Manitoba Natural Resources Act, 1930, gives constitutional protection to the treaty promises of the Crown. As we know, the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements, or NRTA, have been to the detriment to our people in the three Prairie provinces and taken away the rights and liberties of our people. But in that document, it has outlined and explicitly says that the treaty livelihood promised to First Nations was given constitutional protection for the first time, and this was 52 years before section 35 of the Constitution Act was introduced, patriation. I want to reiterate, 52 years before the patriation of the Constitution, these rights were given constitutional protection.
It says in paragraph 13:
In order to secure to the Indians of the Province the continuance of the supply of game and fish for their support and subsistence, Canada agrees that the laws respecting game in force in the Province from time to time shall apply to the Indians within the boundaries thereof, provided, however, that the said Indians shall have the right, which the Province hereby assures to them, of hunting, trapping and fishing game and fish for food at all seasons of the year on all unoccupied Crown lands and on any other lands to which the said Indians may have a right of access.
The Manitoba Natural Resources Act, including paragraph 13 of the schedule to the act, forms a part of the British North America Act, 1930, which is the Constitution Act, 1930. Identical provisions also appear in paragraph 12 of the schedule for each of the Saskatchewan NRTA and the Alberta NRTA, all of which form a part of the Constitution Act of 1930.
The words that are established in this document to ensure that our people have their rights secured by the province for “. . . the continuance of the supply of game and fish for our support and subsistence.” These are the rights that are explicitly outlined in that document, and they are the only expressly articulated rights of First Nations set out in the Constitution of Canada. That is very important. MKO asks this committee to carefully reflect on this fact.
With these provisions in 1930, Canada imposed a constitutionally enforceable obligation upon Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to uphold the treaty promise of the Crown that treaty First Nations will exercise a right to our traditional economies in perpetuity.
The constitutional obligation imposed by Canada upon Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as I said previously, “. . . to secure to the Indians of the Province the continuance of the supply of game and fish for their support and subsistence . . .” was constitutionalized for a second time through subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — enshrined and entrenched in the Constitution. So that’s a lot of power that these rights have protected twice in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in R. v. Blais affirms that this right is exclusively held by “. . . the Indians of the Province . . . .” In R. v. Blais, the Supreme Court ruled that Métis persons are not “Indians of the Province” in the context of paragraph 13 of the NRTA.
That is very important. With all due respect, that is what the Constitution and the provisions and courts have outlined.
There is no “pan-Indigenous” approach on Crown-First Nation consultation. This process can only be applied to the Prairie provinces and the duty-to-consult process addressing the right to hunt, fish and harvest food for those ancestors of treaty signatories.
The conduct of the duty to consult as part of any One Project, One Review process must reflect a distinctions-based approach that will explicitly and distinctly address — and justify — any potential infringements on our rights as Indians in the province for social and ceremonial purposes.
Recently, on May 26, our premier in Manitoba publicly endorsed the conclusion of the Honourable Justice Leonard of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta about when the duty to consult is triggered, as set out in Justice Leonard’s decision in Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer). Premier Kinew implicitly, if not explicitly, concurred with the conclusion of Justice Leonard that the elements of the three tests from Haida Nation were satisfied and that the proposed Alberta referendum question triggered the duty to consult. We concur with the statement and with the premier’s assessment of the situation.
In Manitoba, we have issues as the treaty people, as the rights holders. The Province of Manitoba has not engaged in the duty to consult even where the elements of the three tests in Haida Nation are satisfied and the duty to consult is triggered.
Another example of that happening in our territory is there was a unilateral decision made by the province enacting the Hunting Seasons and Bag Limits Regulation that proceeded to allocate more than 100% of the annual allowable harvest of moose to be licensed through the licence draw program. The MKO has repeatedly called for zero licences to be issued under the licence draw in order to secure the meaningful exercise of the twice-constitutionalized right of top priority to hunt for food, support and subsistence and also to address declining moose populations.
In conclusion, the conduct of the duty to consult consistent with the honour of the Crown is an unquestioned legal obligation of the provincial and federal governments when the Crown contemplates conduct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights. So there is a requirement for a First Nation-specific consultation process in the three Prairie provinces to reflect the distinct and twice‑constitutionalized right of top priority of First Nations.
Canada must assume a senior and oversight role in collaboration with our people in our territory to ensure that Canada’s constitutional rule of law is upheld in any one project review process.
I want to thank you for allowing me to speak. It is an honour to be here, and we will be open for questions when time permits.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will now turn to Grand Chief Lucien Wabanonik. I called you Grand Chief when you are a Chief; however, to me, you are a Grand Chief. I apologize.
Lucien Wabanonik, Chief, Lake Simon Anishnabe Nation Council: [Indigenous language spoken]
My name is Lucien Wabanonik, Chief of the Lake Simon Anishnabe Nation Council. Thank you for inviting me; it is my first visit. I will try to not go over my time or make too many mistakes in how I do things; please forgive me.
First, I want to thank the senators for inviting me here to testify.
I would like to speak about two legal concepts that are too often confused in the public debate: free, prior and informed consultation, and social acceptability.
For First Nations, these issues are not merely an administrative matter; they directly concern the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, the protection of territory and the very legitimacy of decisions made by the government.
First, we must affirm a fundamental legal principle: Consultation does not imply automatic consent. Under Canadian law, the duty to consult and, where appropriate, to accommodate stems from the honour of the Crown and the protection afforded to Indigenous and treaty rights under the Constitution Act, 1982. This duty rests with the Crown; it cannot be transferred to developers, even though certain procedural aspects may be delegated to them. In practice, however, this essential distinction is still too often blurred.
In this regard, we are facing a concerning fragmentation of the implementation framework. In practice, each department — at both the federal and provincial levels — applies its own methods, thresholds and expectations regarding consultation. There is no standardization in how consultations are conducted.
This disparity undermines legal predictability, erodes trust and compromises the quality of dialogue with First Nations. However, when the government considers a measure that may have an adverse effect on Indigenous or treaty rights, it is incumbent upon it to ensure a consistent, serious process that complies with its constitutional obligations.
Another aspect that goes unrecognized is the breakdown of trust resulting from the government’s abdication of responsibility.
This abdication of responsibility directly contributes to the breakdown of trust. Governments cannot invoke ordinary laws or administrative mechanisms to reduce the scope of obligations anticipated by the Constitution. A federal or provincial law should never be used to circumvent, weaken or undermine the protection conferred by section 35.
When this perception takes hold, First Nations are placed in a position where they must constantly defend, at great expense, rights already recognized in the Canadian legal system.
We must also highlight a major structural obstacle: the chronic lack of financial and technical resources available to our First Nations to analyze projects, obtain expert advice, participate in processes and, when necessary, defend their rights in court. In a country governed by the rule of law, the effectiveness of a right cannot depend solely on the financial capacity of those who must assert it in court and before the state.
This reality is also evident when Canada enacts laws, regulations or policies that may have a direct impact on First Nations. Each new measure requires legal, technical and community analyses that are costly for communities. If the government intends to act in a spirit of reconciliation, it must also provide concrete means enabling communities to participate in these processes in a meaningful way and to effectively protect their rights.
Accommodation must not be treated as a discretionary or symbolic gesture. When a potential infringement on rights is identified, the duty to accommodate requires a serious examination of concrete measures aimed at preventing, mitigating or compensating for the adverse effects. However, in practice, this requirement is still too often downplayed, both by developers and by public authorities.
Beyond the consultation itself, it is important to remember that inherent rights, ancestral rights and treaty rights are not secondary interests: they are part of the country’s legal framework. Their implementation requires genuine coexistence between First Nations legal systems and Canadian law, not the unilateral imposition of an external framework presented as sufficient in all circumstances.
It is also important to recall that free, prior and informed consent cannot be reduced to a procedural formality. It is part of Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and must guide the government’s conduct when decisions affect the lands, resources or living conditions of communities.
At the federal level, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples now serves as a framework for interpreting and harmonizing Canadian law. However, on the ground, its full implementation remains uneven, and this gap between stated commitments and actual practice fuels mistrust.
The distinction between consultation and consent is crucial. Consultation is a process; consent implies genuine decision-making power exercised in accordance with the institutions, protocols and timelines specific to First Nations. Our governance structures do not necessarily align with the timelines imposed by governments or developers. When we convene assemblies, assess impacts and seek to establish a collective position, we are fulfilling our political and legal responsibilities to our members.
The problem is that the growing number of requests, combined with insufficient resources, too often forces us to choose between several potential rights violations, which is in itself unacceptable.
When it comes to extraction or development projects, the potential impacts are never abstract. They affect essential elements of the traditional territory and, consequently, the very exercise of protected rights. Among the elements that must be rigorously protected are, in particular, sacred sites, hunting, fishing and trapping, environmental health, culture and language, spawning grounds and other wildlife habitats. This list is not exhaustive.
Processes initiated late, sometimes when key decisions have already been made or finalized; communities being asked to respond without having the minimum resources to analyze the files; documents provided at the last minute or in an incomplete manner, within unreasonable time frames, or under conditions that prevent meaningful and informed participation — under such conditions, consultation risks becoming a mere exercise in administrative compliance rather than a genuine dialogue befitting the honour of the Crown.
There is another important factor: intergenerational impacts. Territorial rights violations cannot be measured solely in the short term. They have lasting effects on the transmission of knowledge, the practice of cultural traditions, food security, language and the relationship younger generations have with their land. In this sense, any public decision affecting the land also entails being accountable to future generations.
It is therefore necessary to move from a unilateral project management model to a true model of shared governance. Legislative and regulatory reconciliation cannot be conceived without the direct participation of First Nations governments. The joint development of standards, consultation mechanisms and accommodation measures constitutes, in our view, one of the only credible paths to restoring trust and demonstrating the government’s good faith.
In conclusion, decisive steps still need to be taken to restore a relationship of trust between the government and First Nations. Too often, government initiatives give the impression that administrative or economic efficiency still takes precedence over respect for protected rights. That kind of logic is incompatible with the constitutional promise of reconciliation.
Any legislative or regulatory proposal that affects our rights should be developed in consultation with the communities concerned, and not solely with stakeholders chosen for reasons of institutional convenience. Respect for rights requires that we listen directly to the nations and communities that bear the concrete consequences of these measures.
Finally, we cannot ignore the persistent lack of technical, administrative and professional capacity within many communities — a shortfall that is largely the result of chronic underfunding. Demanding full and meaningful participation without providing the necessary means comes down, in reality, to limiting the effective exercise of these rights.
I will conclude with this reminder: when a government acts as if acceptance of a project can be presumed once minimal formalities have been fulfilled, it strays from its constitutional obligations. Section 35 does not require a mere pretense of consultation; it demands honourable, serious conduct aimed at the genuine protection of rights. Without this, trust collapses, conflicts multiply and reconciliation remains a principle that is affirmed but insufficiently applied.
Thank you for listening to me. Meegwetch. I look forward to answering your questions.
[English]
The Chair: [Indigenous language spoken.] Thank you.
Now, we will go with Kilikvak Kabloona.
Kilikvak Kabloona, Chief Executive Officer, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: [Inuktitut spoken.]
Good morning. I’m Kilikvak Kabloona, the Chief Executive Officer for Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., or NTI. Our president and vice-president hoped to be here with you; unfortunately, the flights from our capital city were full, and there is still no fibre‑optic transmission to Nunavut.
Honourable and respected members, I am pleased to join you here to speak about the duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples.
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., or NTI, is the legal governing body for Nunavut Inuit, created under the Nunavut Agreement modern treaty, which came into force on July 9, 1993. NTI is responsible for representing and protecting the rights of approximately 40,000 Nunavut Inuit. Nunavut is made up of 25 communities and spans nearly 2 million square kilometres, about one fifth of Canada’s total landmass.
The Nunavut Agreement has unique features that tie into the topic of your study. Nunavut, meaning our “our land,” was created so that Inuit would have more control regarding what happens within our homelands.
One of the fundamental objectives of our agreement is for Inuit “. . . to participate in decision-making concerning the use, management and conservation of certain lands, Water and resources in Nunavut.”
To meet these objectives, consultations with Nunavut Inuit must be meaningful and respect our Knowledge, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, culture and obligations to communicate in our language, Inuktitut. Community members must be aware of proposals that impact them and be meaningfully involved.
Our agreement sets a high standard for Inuit involvement in the regulatory processes managed by the institutions of public government, such as the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
To fulfill these substantial consultation obligations, adequate resources are required to support Inuit involvement, as the other panellists have already mentioned. Currently, the Government of Canada provides participation funding for the Nunavut Impact Review Board processes through the Northern Participant Funding Program, so there is some funding under that review process.
Fulfilling Nunavut Agreement obligations requires a long-term, stable commitment to meaningful consultations, supported through codeveloped regulations under the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. This important step would also assist the Government of Canada, as the government relies on the regulatory and consultation processes in the Nunavut Agreement to satisfy their legal obligation to fulfill the duty to consult.
While agreements and structures exist, more progress is needed to ensure Nunavut Inuit are fully recognized as equal partners in decisions that matter to us. Communication with Inuit must increase and improve by meeting communities where they are, by supporting early engagement and information sharing and by ensuring it is meaningful, consistent and responsive to community needs.
A key challenge is that these processes are currently discretionary in the context of an increasing number of complex proposals for transportation, infrastructure and resource development activities that require investments in the processes.
Coordination must be strengthened and clarified between government bodies responsible for the duty to consult and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, or NTI, and designated Inuit organizations that confirm whether those obligations have been met.
A consultation process requires early, well-funded and inclusive engagement that respects cultural and governance realities, fosters direct dialogue with a broad and good-faith interpretation of treaty obligations, prioritizes timely implementation, focuses on substantive issues over technicalities and allows for genuine influence, including the ability to say no.
I would also like to acknowledge Minister of Justice Sean Fraser for approving the guidance document on implementing consultation and cooperation with Inuit in May.
Our rights within our land claims agreement, at common law or within the international human rights framework must be fully respected. Our rights transcend current affairs and current policy directions, and the duty to consult will always be at the high end of the spectrum because our rights are not just asserted but confirmed.
For Nunavut Inuit, there can be no lower standard available than true partnership.
Thank you.
The Chair: This is a very powerful panel, with strong experience and knowledge, noting that we are in a space that is not natural for Indigenous Peoples — the Senate — but we agree to participate in that space or belong to that space and we’re taking that space, to make sure that we perform this study in a good way. Maybe my English words are not the correct ones, but I will do my best. I note we have to leave at 11 o’clock because there is another meeting in this room, but I would be open to discuss with my colleagues — I cannot make a decision because I have to consult or have a conversation with my colleagues about this.
Because of the importance of this panel and what was said and shared with us, we might ask you to come back. I don’t know when, but we want to make sure that we honour what we are doing here today with you. It is a sacred relationship. So I don’t want to commit, but we will have a discussion about that. We will use every minute that we have and make sure to find a way to have more time with all of you pretty soon, and also with the necessary technology.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your powerful presentations. It is good for the committee to hear what you have to say in order to teach us so that we have a good foundation for this.
What I wanted to speak about is that First Nations have been impacted over centuries, so we’re looking at a cumulative impact rights assessment. Then you have ongoing consultation in the same area, plus the assertion of Métis rights now that is adding to the mix.
When you look at some of the court cases, they say, “This is a forward-looking duty,” unless there are potential future impacts. So I will use hydro as an example. They have really destroyed the land and the lives of people, their security, their safety, the water and the harvesting. Now they want to nationalize the electric grid, and people are talking about more power. When you look at all these breaches and that mix — that you do need consultation, ongoing consultation, even with past breaches, because — I’m getting this from Newman’s book. He says:
If consultation is not pursued, then any breach of rights ultimately transforms a past breach that is subject to challenge based on the substantive doctrine of Aboriginal and treaty rights rather than based on a procedural mechanism that has forward-looking purposes.
When you look at what is happening in our communities, including the harvesting that you were talking about, the continuous breach by the province that has a duty to consult, but not the corporations, and that that consultation is based on mandates, what would be your suggestions for how we come out of this mix? It is mind-boggling to me how the Chiefs can navigate through all this. Do you have any comments? You can provide a written response if you would like.
Mr. Settee: Thank you for that question, senator. Our people in the North, in MKO’s territory, have experienced many atrocities by corporations, be it mining, forestry and hydroelectric projects, and they are usually done with the sanctioning by the governments that exist in that period.
The duty to consult has always been the last thing on the agenda of governments. They wanted to extract resources without setting up a fair process to address the damages done to not only the land but to our culture and the well-being of our people. It has been detrimental. We are still reaping the effects of the damage to our lands. The ability for our young people to access land or be introduced to ceremonial practices and cultural activities on the land is not there because the land has been damaged so bad.
There are a lot of mental health issues with our young people. They are disconnected from the land, and they are disconnected from their culture. That is because of the greed of corporations lining their pockets while our people continue to live in abject poverty. So those are the things that we continue to deal with. Today, we’re still discussing the duty to consult because it has not been done or honoured to the degree that it warrants.
But this is a new day. This is a new era. There is a paradigm shift that is happening. We have young Indigenous leaders who are educated. A lot of our Chiefs know the law, and they have been really immersed in what has been happening, and they are able to respond with clarity as to what their rights are and what their people need.
Those are the things that we are dealing with. It is an ongoing process. Ultimately, it is the government failing to honour their own Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be the highest law in the land. When you start ignoring your Constitution for the sake of corporations having access to resources, then your country is not in a position to be a strong nation because it weakens the Constitution when you start compromising on that. That’s something that we will not allow. We will not tolerate that anymore. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Would you like to respond?
Mr. Wabanonik: You know, when it comes to differentiating between people, for many of our First Nations, it’s not a concept that belongs to us. It’s a colonial concept. For us in Quebec — I am speaking for myself, as a representative of my community — the concept of “Métis” simply does not exist, because it is a colonial concept. An Anishinaabe person is a citizen of their territory as long as they practise their culture and identify as Anishinaabe. This does not change, no matter where they go or how they practise their cultural activities.
For us, this is the Anishinaabe vision. It’s not about dividing nations or our peoples. It’s something that the colonizers also need to understand. A law that governs certain aspects or principles, on which we were not consulted, is not something that belongs to us at that point. I’m just focusing on that aspect, because it’s important to sort out things from the perspectives of our First Nations. For me, this way of thinking and seeing things about our peoples is a colonial concept that should not be accepted in Canadian law today.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Kabloona: Thank you. I think it is an important topic in Nunavut as well. In terms of promising practices, I would like to point out that, in Nunavut, we were very lucky at the time that Premier Akeeagok consulted with Nunavut Inuit on projects to support the major projects list, and the list came from Inuit-owned initiatives. That’s where we should be heading, where Inuit and Indigenous people are deciding the developments that we want in our backyards for our people and our companies.
We have, on the opposite spectrum, projects that have been existed since before Nunavut was created. In Nunavut, they are on grandfathered land leases. What we see with those projects is that the communities have not been involved in the decisions regarding those projects, and they go back to the 1970s. The Inuit consistently say they have not been heard. They don’t understand the scope of the project, and the cumulative effects are now being looked at by our institutes of public government.
The level of consultation in these two scenarios is very different and needs to be revisited as the process unfolds. Thank you.
The Chair: There are a few minutes left if you want to ask your question.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all of our witnesses. I will just probably get the question out given the time considerations, and if you have an opportunity to provide a written response, that would be greatly appreciated.
I have a question for each of you. Grand Chief Settee, you mentioned a bit about Sparrow and the obligations associated with Sparrow. You got into a bit of analysis with respect to governments skipping over the justification aspect of the duty to consult, as outlined in Sparrow, to a point where they say, “Let’s make a deal.” That’s the way you framed it. I kind of liked that. That’s my question. If you could elaborate on that, maybe in writing, given our time constraints.
Mr. Wabanonik, thank you for being here. You talked about UNDRIP and UNDRIPA not being evenly implemented on the ground and how this is creating mistrust with First Nation groups. You came out with a distinction between consultation and consent. You talked about consultation as a process and consent as certain components that allow informed decisions to be made. I am hoping you might be able to elaborate on that in writing if you don’t mind.
Ms. Kabloona — my apologies if I got that wrong — you also spoke about the differences between asserted and confirmed rights. I would imagine that exists in your agreement. One of the things that I understood was the importance of sustained, long-term funding to provide an appropriate capacity for Inuit people to participate within various consultative processes. If you could further expand upon that, maybe in a written component, I would greatly appreciate it.
I think that’s probably my time, and my apologies for not having the ability to have a more substantive discussion with the committee. Thanks.
The Chair: If I may, dear colleagues, this is very personal. I don’t think you need to apologize. It is just that we try to accommodate the technology, translation and interpretation. We are so used to that, but we are also able to bring them back — I’m pretty sure. I will use some magic powder so we can do that. I want to say thank you, tshinashkumitnau, nakurmiik.
[Translation]
That’s impressive.
[English]
I was impressed, and this is just the beginning. We need your strength, support and knowledge to ensure that the report will bring your voice and shake another place to do better.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)