CHARBONNEAU – Indigenous people don’t have veto power over projects

THERE’S A LOT of misunderstanding over Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

The confusion over UNDRIP has been amplified with the passage of Bill C-5 (the One Canadian Economy Act).

Bill C-5 is designed to fast-track major economic projects in Canada, such as in energy, mining, infrastructure, and critical minerals by reducing regulatory delays.

Fast-tracking is not in our blood. We like to hum and haw, grind out decisions through bureaucratic red tape, strike Royal Commissions to study the situation, consult with Indigenous peoples for decades, centuries.

Carney understands that Canada must move swiftly, especially faced with an American president determined to beat us into submission.

Populist conservatives think UNDRIP means that Indigenous people can halt projects proposed by governments.

BC Conservative Party leader John Rustad claims it grants First Nations veto power over Crown land decisions. He adds that the declaration was “established for conditions in other countries — not Canada.”

Indigenous people think that Bill C-5 will steamroller over their rights under UNDRIP.

The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, called for a pause on Carney’s plans until its impacts are reviewed. She stressed that First Nations support prosperity but “not at the expense of our rights”

Neither one is right.

Justice Minister Sean Fraser made a political blunder by telling the truth. In response to reporters, he said that First Nations don’t have “a blanket veto power” over projects.

While it’s refreshing to hear politicians speak plainly, it’s politically incorrect.

Woodhouse Nepinak responded to Fraser’s remarks and said that it’s “disheartening” when politicians make such comments.

Fraser apologized:

“Despite innocent intentions, I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially eroded a very precarious trust. , ,”.

It’s wrong to assume that the feds won’t comply with UNDRIP.

While initially a dissenting voice, Canada formally endorsed the Declaration in 2016 and has since taken steps to align its laws and policies with the principles outlined in the declaration.

What UNDRIP does is to lay out a framework for governments to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous groups for any activity on their traditional territories.

However, there is a subtle difference between free, prior and informed consent and a veto.

The misunderstanding results from a failure to understand that UNDRIP is not a law. It is, at its heart, a framework for governments to obtain the free, prior and informed consent for any activity on First Nations traditional territories.

Legal precedent, and the declaration itself, make the meaniong clear.

For example, in the case of Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (2025), the Federal Court found that UNDRIP requires a duty to consult and accommodate but is not a veto.

Canada has a duty to consult with First Nations and to compensate for land use when consultations fail.

First Nations have a duty to expedite negotiations.

The survival of Canada and the wellbeing of all Canadians depends on it.

David Charbonneau is a retired TRU electronics instructor who hosts a blog at http://www.eyeviewkamloops.wordpress.com.