News

During TVA’s Face-à-face debate, journalist Paul Larocque asked a question that deserves recognition. In a campaign where Indigenous issues have been largely absent from the discussion, he reminded us of an increasingly unavoidable reality: many of the major projects that will shape Québec’s future, particularly in the area of energy development, cannot move forward without the participation and consent of First Nations.

The question prompted an exchange between Christine Fréchette and Paul St-Pierre Plamondon regarding Churchill Falls and a potential sovereignty project. Beyond partisan positions, one conclusion emerges clearly: it is no longer possible to think about Québec’s political, economic, or energy future without taking First Nations into account.

This is an important starting point. But recognizing the need to obtain First Nations’ consent raises an even more fundamental question: are we prepared to fully recognize their right to self-determination?

None of the major issues that will shape Québec’s future, whether energy development, natural resource extraction, constitutional change, or sovereignty, can be seriously addressed without the participation of First Nations.

That is what brings us to write together today.

We first met more than 20 years ago, when one of us was leading the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the other was advising Québec’s minister responsible for Indigenous affairs. Despite the years that have passed and the different roles we have since held, we remain driven by the same conviction: peoples must have the right to determine their own future. That conviction applies just as much to First Nations as it does to the Québécois people.

Some progress over the past decades suggested that Indigenous issues might finally find their rightful place in Québec’s political debate. Unfortunately, that is still not the case. Indigenous leaders continue to bear the burden of reminding others of realities that should already be an integral part of any discussion about Québec’s future.

Yet these issues do not concern First Nations alone. They are also central to Québec’s economic, energy, democratic, and territorial future. Still, there remains a reluctance to fully embrace the implications of recognizing Indigenous rights. Too often, these rights are viewed solely through the lens of human rights, when they also relate to governance, the economy, land, and the political organization of tomorrow’s Québec.

Still Not Adopted

We are thinking in particular of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This declaration calls on states to rethink their relationships with Indigenous peoples and to fully recognize their capacity for self-government. Yet despite favourable rhetoric in recent years, Québec has still not officially endorsed it.

One of the reservations often expressed concerns the right to self-determination, which is sometimes portrayed as a threat to Québec’s national aspirations. We believe exactly the opposite.

The self-determination of First Nations in no way diminishes that of the Québécois people. A people that claims the right to choose its own destiny should be the first to recognize that same right in other peoples. Québec has long sought recognition of its national character, language, culture, and right to make its own collective choices. First Nations express the same desire to preserve their languages, cultures, institutions, and ability to decide their own future.

These aspirations do not place peoples in competition with one another. On the contrary, they should lead them to recognize one another’s rights and the responsibilities they share with respect to the land.

Because the land is not simply a space to own or exploit. It carries histories, relationships, and responsibilities. Restoring its dignity requires recognizing the peoples who inhabit it, their connection to it, and their right to fully participate in decisions that determine its future.

Before this election campaign, Québec political leaders regularly spoke of reconciliation and nation-to-nation relationships. Today, those concepts seem to have disappeared from the public debate. Yet an election campaign should be an opportunity to clarify what they actually mean in practice.

How can we speak of nation-to-nation relationships when First Nations governments do not always have the powers, resources, and tools necessary to function fully as governments?

This question becomes even more pressing as many communities face significant challenges related to safety, crime, and the vitality of their institutions. It is impossible to speak seriously about self-determination without addressing the ability of Indigenous governments to protect their citizens and fully exercise their responsibilities.

Yet self-determination, governance, and the relationship between Québec and First Nations remain largely absent from this campaign.

Silence will not make these issues disappear. It only deprives Québec of an essential conversation about its own future and about the relationship it wishes to build with First Nations.

The land remains. The peoples remain as well.

Can we truly envision Québec’s future without First Nations? The question should not even need to be asked.

Link to the article: Peut-on parler de l’avenir du Québec sans les Premières Nations ?