Senator Mary Jane McCallum

Senator McCallum: Thank you for taking the time to come and meet with us.

These questions come from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. You answered the first one, or I don’t know if you answered enough for them. It was about including the Indian Act in Schedule 1. These are not hypothetical situations or questions.

When you look at these acts in Schedule 1, as well as some provincial laws, they were not enforced which led to a lack of mitigation. Polluters didn’t pay but taxpayers did, like the orphan wells. It led to concentrated dumping of toxins in First Nation lands and waterways, resulting in premature morbidity and mortality, hence the passing of the Environmental Racism Act.

With the increase in critical minerals mining, the simultaneous increase in toxins and the fast-tracking of major energy projects, should First Nations expect more of the same and an increase in the toxins that are left at their doorstep?

Ms. Alty: Thank you, senator, for the question. I can appreciate where people are coming from because to say, “Trust us; here is the legislation” — there has been a lot of broken trust over the years. From that, I would say we know that failing to uphold our legal responsibilities stopped and delayed projects, and we’re looking to advance them.

I know there are also many questions about why consultation isn’t defined. The thing about defining consultation is it is hard to have a single definition for Indigenous consultation. We want to ensure it is meaningful and adequate. It is a very fact-specific situation. We have also seen the definition of consultation evolve a lot over time and I’m sure it will continue to do so. We have seen that coming out of a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions. We want to ensure that rights are affirmed by the Constitution and the duty to consult and accommodate. We are committed.

The other point I would make is, in the federal major projects office, having the Indigenous advisory council looking to develop the terms of reference and the composition over the summer with Indigenous rights holders will help provide guidance to ensure that consultation — when it comes to adding a project to Schedule 1 or once we get to setting those conditions — is done right. Thank you.

Senator McCallum: Minister Alty, in your recent public remarks, you have stated that First Nations infrastructure is “critical” but clarified that it does not fall under the scope of Canada’s proposed nation-building legislation Bill C-5. This bill aims to fast-track major infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest. However, for many First Nations, access to clean water, safe housing, all-season roads and broadband is not only critical, but the foundation of nationhood, treaty implementation and economic self-sufficiency.

Can you please clarify how your government justifies excluding First Nations infrastructure from the definition of “nation building” under Bill C-5 and what message this sends to First Nations, who continue to face systemic underinvestment and inequality? How will your government ensure that First Nations are not sidelined once again in decisions about the future of their lands, economies and basic human rights?

Ms. Alty: Thank you for the question and the opportunity to clarify. I’m sure folks here have been misquoted in the media, too. It is really important to clarify this.

With this bill, as noted in the bill’s preamble, we’re looking to advance projects, develop economic and trade corridors, connect different parts of the country to get goods to market, strengthen Canada’s ability to trade and enhance the development of Canada’s natural resources.

With that, then, it is about the evaluation, the five parts, strengthening Canada’s autonomy and so on. So Indigenous proponents and provinces and territories are able to bring any projects that meet those conditions forward for consideration.

This bill isn’t a magic bullet to solve all of the infrastructure deficits we have in this country. It will help some projects that need that regulatory support. But other projects need funding support; it is not a case of regulatory challenges. So really, we must ensure that we don’t put all our eggs into this basket and think that our infrastructure deficits will go away in this country. This is about addressing the regulatory challenges of megaprojects.