Canada singled itself out as the only country to raise objections over a landmark United Nations document re-establishing the protection of the rights of indigenous people last week. It was a gesture one prominent First Nation leader called “saddening, surprising.” “Canada was viewed always as a country that upheld human rights,” said Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Chief Perry Bellegarde. “For Canada to be the only nation state to get up to make a caveat on the vote – that’s very telling.” Bellegarde travelled to New York City to attend a special UN General Assembly meeting of more than 1,000 delegates and heads of state for the first-ever World Conference on Indigenous Peoples on Sept. 22 and 23. On day one, nations voted on the adoption of the document – the first vote of its kind after the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was introduced in 2007. In his opening remarks, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke about the document’s significance, saying it helps “set minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples” – more than 370 million around the world. “I expect member states to meet their commitments, including by carrying out national action plans to realize our shared vision,” he told delegates. The United States, who was among four nations (including Canada) who opposed the adoption of the original declaration seven years ago, notably reversed its position. President Barack Obama threw his administration’s support behind the declaration, regarding it as one that will help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future. The document was adopted by all nations by consensus last week, but Canada was the only country to file its objections, flagging the wording of “free, prior and informed consent” as problematic. Free, prior, and informed consent is commonly upheld as a key principle in international law. But according to Ottawa, it’s tricky wording that could be interpreted as “a veto to aboriginal groups and in that regard, cannot be reconciled with Canadian law, as it exists.” “As a result, Canada cannot associate itself with the elements contained in this outcome document related to free, prior and informed consent,” the government explained in a statement. ‘Deeply Concerning’ Interim Assembly of First Nations Chief Ghislain Picard called the government’s objections “deeply concerning,” adding “Canada continues to embarrass itself and isolate itself on the world stage by offering to explain their vote.” In the feds’ explanation, the word “veto” pops up three times, and Bellegarde says that’s inaccurate. “Veto does not exist in the declaration anywhere,” Bellegarde said. “Why are they misleading and using that word?” In 2007, Ottawa first used the same “veto” explanation in its statement rejecting the UN declaration. Then in 2010, despite rejecting the declaration three years earlier, the federal government issued a statement saying: “We are now confident that Canada can interpret the principles expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework.” Fast-forward to today and First Nation leaders, including Bellegarde, say they’re flabbergasted over the government’s flip-flopping and contradictory statements. Bellegarde, who announced his candidacy for Assembly of First Nations chief on Wednesday, told The Huffington Post Canada in an interview the Harper government failed to consult with aboriginal groups in “any forums, any meetings, any dialogues” prior to the two-day UN conference. He brought up recent decisions from Canada’s own Supreme Court which upheld aboriginal rights and titles and reinforced the necessity to obtain consent from aboriginal people on issues pertaining to property rights and claims. In Tsilhqot’in Nation vs. British Columbia, a ruling written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, it clearly states government and other agencies who desire access to land conferred by aboriginal titles “must obtain the consent of the Aboriginal title holders.” “This relationship between this government, our Crown, and Canada and its indigenous peoples does not have to be so unnecessarily adversarial,” Bellegarde said.
Posted on: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:40:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015