Skeena MLA Ellis Ross weaves many themes on UNDRIP for Legislature

As the NDP government moves towards implementing UNDRIP
into British Columbia legislation, MLA's have been speaking to the
themes of the document, Wednesday provided Skeena MLA
Ellis Ross with an opportunity to share a range of thoughts on the topic

As we noted yesterday, North Coast MLA Jennifer Rice delivered a strong endorsement of the NDP government's approach to aligning the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Persons with provincial laws and policies, speaking to the topic with a five minute presentation on Thursday morning.

One day earlier, Skeena MLA Ellis Ross also provided his thoughts towards the initiative of the NDP government, delivering a range of themes for consideration from the Legislature over the course of a one hour plus presentation.

For the Seena MLA, many of his comments were not new, framed through the prism of his time as Chief Councillor with the Haisla Nation and other observations from his time in the community, he provided a comprehensive overview of what he hopes the declaration will achieve as well as a number of concerns that he still has over how the government is rolling it into law and policy.

His preamble towards the full overview of UNDRIP, included a short review of how using existing case law and forging agreements the Haisla have created the foundation for growth for their community.

Speaking to that experience Mr. Ross looked at how he has viewed the progress made so far and how the focus needs to be put on the individual more than a collective approach.

I'm hearing a lot of stories about what really happened to First Nations on first contact. I'm well aware of it. I researched it for two years in my own band office, through our archives. I'm well aware of it, of what happened to my band as well as what happened across Canada to Aboriginal nations. 

I'm no stranger to it. I actually put together a pamphlet, a booklet, to describe to our people what reconciliation means in terms of what happened to our people historically — not with the idea to put anybody down, not to be political about it but to encourage the people of today and tomorrow to say: "It's up to you to go out and fix your own future so that our people of the past didn't have to suffer for nothing." 

 I always had a perception that we should be moving forward, always moving forward. Acknowledge the past, but move forward. Because the social issues that we talk about in terms of statistics — that's crazy. 

We all know that Aboriginal issues in Canada are a multi-billion-dollar industry. Just on Indian Act programming money alone, it's a multi-billion-dollar industry. Then you include the legal bills, the consultants and on and on and on. With all these billions of dollars for the last 30, 40 years, why have we not made a dent in the statistics of the social issues facing First Nations? 

It's because we're not focused on the individual. We're not focused on concrete results.

The overview included a look at how recent developments in the Northwest have changed the economic base in both Kitamaat Village and Kitimat, noting how the Haisla had found the middle ground working through the established of existing case law.

Mr. Ross observed as to how the current development of LNG infrastructure came through that process and how it has led to not only economic development but improved education and job opportunities for all in that region.

The Skeena MLA also took note of some of the current of discussion in the Legislature as to how the opposition should not be questioning the proposed legislation, but instead should be working to implement it and following the government's lead on the process ahead.

Now, I've heard some discussion about how this House has got to work together on this — openness and transparency. But at the same time, I've also heard that members are saying that people who want to question this act are actually fearmongering when we're talking about the word "veto."

That's irresponsible. Our job is to hold government accountable. Our job is to make B.C. a better place for everybody. So if you see people in this House questioning a decision by government and then you characterize that as fearmongering, that is irresponsible. 

What am I doing here if I'm not questioning a decision by government? That's our job. I've got to go back and report back to my Skeena constituents on what this actually means. 

And For the most part, I know what it means. I just don't understand one term, and I never have. When the declaration first came out — what, ten or 12 years ago? — I didn't understand it. And for the most part, what I did understand, most of that declaration were rights that we already had. It went without saying that we had the right to self-determination. I knew that. We didn't need case law to say that. We didn't need a declaration. I knew that. We have the right to preserve our own language. I knew it. 

Nobody ever came in to me and said: "You don't have the right to preserve your own language and culture." Nobody ever said that. So a lot of that was empty promises in this declaration. 

 What we do know is that everybody in this House, including the Aboriginal leaders that joined us last week in the celebration, confirmed that the declaration does not represent a veto. Consent does not equal veto.

On the topic of previous moves to adopt UNDRIP at the federal level, the Skeena MLA noted how it reflected his view that it would distract from goals of independence and self determination.

Back in 2007 Canada's Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said the reason it voted against UNDRIP was that it was not balanced and conflicted with Canada's Charter of Rights. I don't know if that's true or not. I just thought about my own band's path.

Almost ten years later, this is what another federal minister said about UNDRIP. This was at a 2016 address to the annual general meeting of Assembly of First Nations. Approximately 2,500 delegates were in attendance, representing First Nations from coast to coast.

 This is what the federal minister had to say and I quote: "As much as I would like to cast the Indian Act into the fire of history so that the nations can be reborn in its ashes, this is not a practical option, which is why simplistic approaches such as adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work required to actually implement it." 

This was a quote from a federal minister. This quote came from the Attorney General of Canada, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould. She said that. She said it was "a political distraction to undertaking the hard work required to actually implement it."

 She was here during the ceremony. She was sitting right up there. She was acknowledged by everybody.  And I must say that I've always respected Jody Wilson-Raybould. Knowing her background, knowing where she came from, I've always respected her. 

When she made that quote to the Assembly of First Nations, my respect level went even higher, because what she said took courage — to honestly speak about UNDRIP. That took courage, because the narrative was going a different way.

To bring the many threads of his themes together, Mr. Ross observed as to how it his hope that the bill achieves what the government is seeking with a sense of coming together.

Though he cautions that he also hopes it does not become a vehicle for endless legal moves in the courts that may detract from the ability to build on the successes to date and to work for a strong future ahead together.

At the end of the day, I have non-native family. I have cousins, uncles and aunties. I don't want to alienate them. I don't want anything that in terms of trying to address the First Nations issues in B.C.,  I don't want that to be the cause of division of the society we have in B.C. I don't want to divide our communities. I don't want to divide our families. 

And Most certainly, I don't want to create animosity between First Nations and non–First Nations. I don't want that. 

 So I was really glad that a lot of leaders spoke about reconciliation in terms of we're all in this together. Because if you looked at the definition of "reconciliation," it actually means: "Let's bring it back together." 

So if you read that definition alone, then it somehow implies that at one point in history, we were together. Somehow, we separated, and now we've got to reconcile. I believe in that fully. So, I do hope that this bill and the declaration achieves us coming together, even more so than what we've done in the last ten years, which was incredible progress. 

And I hope that this doesn't end up in the courts or in legal hands for the next ten, twenty years, because we don't want to go back 20 years in time. We want to build on our successes to date, and we definitely want to build a strong future for all British Columbians.

The full presentation to the House, examined many other areas of note, some of hope for the future; others reflecting concerns or unknowns about the path ahead for UNDRIP in Canada.

It's well worth a review to get a full, thoughtful overview from an MLA who has had some extensive experience in many of the themes that the declaration is set to have an impact on.

You can review the transcript here, starting at 4:15 PM, as well the video of Mr. Ross's extensive look at the NDP government's blue print ahead can be found here starting at 4:15PM.

For more notes on the work of MLA's at the Legislature, see our two archive pages below

North Coast Archive

Skeena-Stikine Archive

Ellis Ross on UNDRIP: "A feel good document" ... one not workable with Canadian laws

Skeena MLA Ellis Ross combined some past history as Chief Councillor
with the Haisla Nation, along with his understanding of the Canadian
Constitution to the Legislature on Monday. Providing a fairly
detailed overview of his concerns about the UN document UNDRIP
(from the BC Legislature video feed)

The themes of the United Nations Declaration Rights of Indigenous Peoples made for an expansive overview for Skeena MLA Ellis Ross on Monday morning, as he explored a number of concerns that he has with the declaration document from the United Nations and how its provisions may have an impact on the Social and Economic Future for First Nations in British Columbia and across Canada.

Mr. Ross provided the Legislature with his overview, partially framed through his time as Chief Councillor of the Haisla Nation, mixing in some observations from other First Nations leaders wh have reviewed the UNDRIP declaration and found similar concerns to his.

From his expansive review of the process hat has brought the UNDRIP declaration to the Legislature for discussion, four paragraphs provide for a fairly good examination as to how the Skeena MLA sees the document and the inconsistencies that it would seem to offer when it comes to the goals of reconciliation in British Columbia.

"Before I became an MLA, I already had committed myself to public service as a councillor and, later, a chief councillor of the Haisla First Nation. I evolved throughout my entire experience on council and so did my views on how to best serve my people and my community. That's why I thought it would be useful to consider the social and economic future of First Nations, especially in the context of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, otherwise known as UNDRIP. 

UNDRIP is a product of the United Nations General Assembly, of which Canada was a founding member of the UN charter in 1945. Canada is recognized for its contribution to the UN organization through numerous and dangerous peacekeeping missions, participation and leadership in specialized agencies like UNICEF and UNESCO and for our support for the multilateral solutions to some of the world's most challenging conflicts


One would therefore expect that Canada might have been a full supporter of UNDRIP when it was adopted by a vote of the UN General Assembly in 2007, and yet it was not. At that time, there were 192 member states of the General Assembly. A majority, 144, voted in favour of UNDRIP. In fact, only 42, less than a majority of the 88 countries with Indigenous peoples, voted in favour of UNDRIP. Furthermore, four countries took a principled stand and voted again UNDRIP, notably Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada.

 This begs the question why some of the most highly developed countries in the world fundamentally rejected UNDRIP. It was not just the government of Canada that rejected UNDRIP. Many First Nations in Canada also opposed the declaration. The fact is that there never was any unanimity among First Nations respecting UNDRIP. That's because First Nations in Canada cannot be regarded as one single, solitary entity."

To further his review, Mr. Ross called attention the Canadian constitution and observed that Section 35 of the constitution has evolved into a duty to consult native populations, making the concept of UNDRIP a far less relevant, or significant document to Aboriginal people in comparison.

 "In other words, section 35 of the charter already put us on a path towards reconciliation about 30 years ago, long before UNDRIP was even considered in 2007. Even today UNDRIP has no standing in Canadian law. Although Canada did remove itself as an objector to UNDRIP in 2016, it remains only a broad statement of values."

The legality of the UN document in Canadian law also made for a current of the discussion in the House on Monday, with Mr. Ross noting that Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, a former Cape Mudge band Councillor had addressed the Assembly of First Nations in 2016 to highlight how many elements of the UNDRIP declaration were unworkable with Canadian law.

"That's all that UNDRIP really represents — a feel-good document. Progress on real issues has been my agenda for 14 years — issues like reducing the tragic number of suicides on reserves, combating the cyclical poverty that prevents a generation from finally liberating itself, or giving First Nations the opportunity to benefit socially and economically from natural resources located on their traditional territories. These are the real issues. 

UNDRIP cannot be reconciled within the existing Canadian legal framework, period. In no way is it a binding instrument like a treaty, which can be ratified and incorporated into legislation. "

The Skeena MLA wrapped up his examination of the issues of UNDRIP by noting that in a way the UN document is one that could take Canada backwards when it comes to relationships with Canada's First Nations, stalling in effect, the current progress that has taken place towards Reconciliation in recent years.

" To suggest that no progress or reconciliation in Canada has taken place is false. UNDRIP has the potential to bring Canada back to 1982, which is not in the best interests of Canada or Aboriginals. Canada's relationship with First Nations has come a long way. We have a strong foundation to build on. It would be a shame to waste the decades of hard work in reconciling all Canadians' interests for a better future."

You can review the full text of his address, as well as a contribution to the discussion from Green Party MLA Adam Olsen, the MLA for Sannich North and the Islands as part of the Hansard Record of Monday's morning session here, starting at the 10:20 point.

The video presentation of Mr. Ross's commentary can be viewed here, as with the transcript the discussion on the theme of Social and Economic Future of First Nations starts at the 10:20 AM mark.


For more items related to the work of the Skeena MLA at the Legislature see our archive page here.

A wider overview of developments in Victoria can be found from our political blog D'Arcy McGee.

To return to the most recent blog posting of the day, click here.