As more First Nations voice opposition to Bill C-5, some are drawing comparisons to the 2012 Idle No More movement.
Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute, an Indigenous-led research and education centre at Toronto Metropolitan University, said both the speed with which it was passed and ideas in the bill remind him of former prime minister Stephen Harper’s omnibus bill that helped create the Idle No More movement.
“It was trying to do the very same thing, right? It was trying to fast-track resource development and it got pushed back and it got resistance,” said King, who is Anishinaabe from Beausoleil First Nation in Ontario.
“And as basically [Prime Minister Mark] Carney’s first act, he’s taken up that mantle to really drive and push that extractive resource development.”
Passed into law last week, Bill C-5 aims to remove interprovincial trade barriers while another, more controversial, part of the law aims to speed up projects of national interest, including energy development projects, by allowing special “designated projects” to bypass some federal laws.
“We’re talking about species at risk laws, Fisheries Act, and I think importantly for Indigenous people, we’re talking about… the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act,” King said.
Under the Impact Assessment Act, Indigenous people must be consulted and Indigenous knowledge and rights — and impacts on those rights — should be considered during a project’s assessment.
Each of these laws outline what consultation should look like, King added, so without them, communities are unsure how much they will be consulted.
The federal government has said that Indigenous Peoples will be consulted during the process of choosing the projects to be designated and the review process for projects chosen will include further consultations with those potentially impacted by them.
The federal government has also announced a series of “summits” that will take place over the summer with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
A statement from the Assembly of First Nations said it would be holding a virtual forum with chiefs on July 10 to discuss amendments made to Bill C-5, ahead of the prime minister’s planned meeting with First Nations on July 17.
National Chief Cindy Woodhouse’s statement also thanked Mi’kmaw Sen. Paul Prosper who proposed an amendment last week to have free, prior, and informed consent included in the bill, though it was voted down.
Many Indigenous communities and groups have put out statements outlining their concerns with the bill, in addition to demonstrations and other actions like a letter-writing campaign.
Earlier this month, the Chiefs of Ontario released a statement saying that the bill was being pushed through Parliament “at an unprecedented speed.”
In the same statement, Temagami Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier said “this bill is about exercising power over the First Peoples and our lands and resources.”
Multiple nations in Alberta have also released statements, including Samson Cree Nation which called C-5 the “No Indigenous Rights” bill, adding that it cannot be used to bypass the need for free, prior and informed consent on projects.
Similarly, Assembly of First Nations Québec-Labrador said the federal government chose confrontation rather than co-operation in its approach to passing the bill, and said it did “nothing about climate, biodiversity or a just transition.”
Idle No More Ontario, a grassroots group, called C-5 and similar provincial bills a betrayal of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and treaty obligations
“In terms of respecting Indigenous rights, respecting Indigenous sovereignty, respecting Indigenous peoples jurisdiction — certainly to say no to unwelcome development in their territory — none of these pieces of legislation make any space for that,” King said.
John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network, an organization that advocates for workers, business owners and communities who support Indigenous inclusion in the natural resources sector, said he doesn’t see anything in the bill that is “designed to bypass rights.”
Rather, he said, the bill is an opportunity to respond to world forces while respecting constitutionally protected rights.
“We’ve never seen… government so willing and able to get to the table,” Desjarlais said.
Desjarlais said he’s heard signals from the government that Indigenous equity and ownership of infrastructure projects will be outcomes of the bill.
“There’s a strong assurance there, which means that these communities can use these source revenues to to self-determine and to reinvest in their communities on their terms,” he said.
In light of the many statements brought forward by First Nations groups, Desjarlais said, “I err on the side of that maybe there wasn’t enough [consultation].”
“It’s always a challenge to determine what’s an appropriate level of consultation.”
Because of historical circumstances where projects were pursued without proper or adequate consultation of Indigenous rights holders, Desjarlais said, the current approval system has become risk averse with many sets of approvals to go through.
“But this is where it becomes a little burdensome, layer upon layer upon layer,” he said.
The government has said the goal of the bill is to speed up the approvals process so that projects can complete federal review in under two years.
Desjarlais said when projects reach a point where “we know 90 per cent of what we need to know” then more consultation only slows down the process. At that point, he said, it’s OK for projects to move forward and then adapt later if needs arise.
