Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-16. This bill is not merely a legislative formality for the Haida Nation but a profound commitment to the principles of justice, recognition and self-governance. It continues a pivotal shift of our nation’s approach to Indigenous rights and sets a precedent for similar initiatives across Canada.

The introduction of Bill S-16 is rooted in a comprehensive effort to reconcile past injustices faced by the Haida Nation and other Indigenous peoples. This bill arises from the foundational Nang K’uula • Nang K’úulaas Recognition Agreement and is an integral component of the broader “Changing Tide” Framework for Reconciliation worked on for many years by the governments of British Columbia, Canada and the Haida Nation.

These frameworks are designed to not only acknowledge the sovereignty and traditional governance of the Haida people but to integrate these elements into the legal fabric of Canadian society.

I would like to speak briefly to three aspects of what we are doing this week.

First, I will speak about the legal framework and detailed provisions of Bill S-16. These focus on the governing powers and legal status of Bill S-16, based in section 4 of the act, which stipulates that “. . . the Haida Nation exercises its governing powers —” in accordance with its Constitution “— through the Council of the Haida Nation.” This is the recognition dimension of the bill.

Currently, the Council of the Haida Nation’s legal status exists through its registration under the Societies Act of British Columbia, along with the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and, I presume, the Knights of Columbus and so on. It could be called an unusual way to legalize a government if it weren’t so insulting.

This legislative initiative is critical, as it rectifies these historical oversights and formally recognizes the inherent governance rights held by the Haida Nation. This acknowledgement of these rights in Canadian law is overdue and essential for true reconciliation — forming a relationship based on respect, sovereignty and equality.

Specifically, this provision ensures that the governance conducted by the council aligns with the established and in-place constitutional framework of the Haida Nation, providing a solid legal foundation for its operations. Building on this foundation, section 5 recognizes the Council of the Haida Nation as an entity akin to a natural person, not just a recipient of rights and powers that are somehow delegated to it by some other government. This recognition is pivotal as it grants the council the legal capacities necessary for effective governance, such as entering into contracts, acquiring property, managing assets and initiating legal proceedings under Canadian law.

Second, the legislation establishes through these recognition agreements the potential for future jurisdictional negotiations. Indeed, this is one of the main purposes of the recognition act going forward. The enactment of Bill S-16, the Haida Nation recognition act, significantly enhances the Haida Nation’s capacity to negotiate over key sectors that are vital to their community and environmental sustainability. This will occur through negotiation between Canada, British Columbia and the Council of the Haida Nation, rather than the alternative: litigation.

Categories of potential negotiations could include, first, natural resources management. The Haida Nation will have the opportunity to assert greater control over the extraction and management of natural resources within their beautiful territories. This could include negotiating terms for mining activities, forestry operations and the sustainable harvesting of marine resources. These are central to the traditional way of life and economic sustainability of the Haida people.

With the legal backing to enter into contracts and agreements, the Haida Nation can ensure these natural resource projects are conducted in ways that are respectful of their environmental standards and cultural significance. Which leads to the next topic of potential negotiation: cultural heritage protection.

The legislation provides a framework for the Haida Nation to actively manage and protect their cultural heritage. This can involve negotiating for the return of culturally significant artifacts, establishing museums or cultural centres and managing historical sites. Beyond preservation, the Haida Nation could develop cultural tourism, creating educational programs and experiences that share their history and culture with a wider audience, thus generating revenue while also controlling the narrative and integrity of their cultural exposure.

Senator Busson described both the emotional experience of visiting the Haida Nation recently and the powerful significance and need for the preservation of Haida culture.

With respect to economic development and investment, Bill S-16 allows the Haida Nation to initiate and participate in economic development projects directly. This could include the development of Indigenous-owned businesses, partnerships with external investors and the creation of joint ventures which align with the nation’s economic goals. The ability to engage directly in the commercial market provides a platform for economic self-sufficiency and the potential to create jobs and business opportunities within the community and in accordance with the community’s values.

Another topic is education and social services. With recognized governance capabilities, the Haida Nation might negotiate jurisdiction over educational and social service provisions to their people. This is common in a number of other negotiated agreements across the country. This could lead to the development of education systems that incorporate Haida language, culture and history and tailor educational content to better reflect and serve the community’s needs. Similarly, in social services, programs can be uniquely designed to address the specific challenges and circumstances of the Haida community, from health care to housing and so on.

I turn lastly to my third point and some broader implications for other First Nations. As with the bill we passed last June in relation to the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, the successful implementation of Bill S-16 will set a precedent for First Nations across Canada in similar circumstances to the Haida Nation who seek similar recognition and negotiation powers. It illustrates a clear pathway toward enhanced autonomy and can serve as a model for others in their negotiations with federal and provincial governments.

In conclusion, Bill S-16, the Haida Nation recognition act, represents a significant step forward in a commitment to the rights and governance of the Haida Nation. By endorsing this bill, the dedication to a partnership that respects the sovereignty and dignity of the Haida people is affirmed, setting a standard for how Canada engages with Indigenous nations and fostering a future that embraces equality, respect and mutual benefit.

This bill is not merely a resolution but a pivotal advancement in a much larger journey toward full reconciliation and robust partnership. The legislation provides a framework through which the Haida Nation can exercise significant control of its natural resources, cultural heritage and economic and social development. It marks an essential progression in acknowledging and institutionalizing the inherent governance rights of the Haida Nation. It is a real step on the road to reconciliation, and I urge all senators to support it. Thank you.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Good afternoon, Minister Lametti, and welcome back. We have a whole-of-government commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, centred around the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, but we do not have an obvious whole-of-government strategy to achieve its goals.

I have some acquaintance with such an approach in one of my former lives, specifically a multi-year strategy with commitments, targets, achievements and reporting required from all of the key government departments aimed at First Nations citizens, for example. In your department, for example, strategies and actions could relate to specific levels of reduced offending, lower incarceration rates, lower recidivism, maybe 5% a year. They could also relate to health measures, education, economic opportunities and jobs. I could go on.

Can I ask whether you and our government are committed to this sort of accountable, all-of-government approach?