Amnesty International and aboriginal organizations are outraged that the federal government is actively trying to block approval of the proposed United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights. The United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote on the declaration on September 13. Work on the declaration, which is also opposed by Australia and New Zealand, has been ongoing since 1985.
Craig Benjamin, aboriginal rights campaigner for Amnesty International Canada, says Canada is trying to water down the wording of the declaration so that it has less impact. “What appears to be their goal is to ensure that, at the end of the day, indigenous people have as few tools as possible to challenge the power of the government and to make all the rules and decisions about Aboriginal Peoples’ lives and welfare,” he says. “They want to change the declaration from saying indigenous people have rights, to indigenous people may have rights. The practical consequence of that is to make the declaration so vague and meaningless that it can never be used.”
Benjamin says previous federal governments have “championed” the declaration, but that’s radically changed since the Conservatives came into power, and he questions why.
“I think Canada is one of the countries that would be least affected by the declaration simply because there has been a history of consideration of aboriginal rights before the courts. It would give additional arguments to indigenous people in arguing for their rights, but it won’t create phenomenal change overnight,” he says.
“Where it’s really significant, is parts of the world where, to date, there has been no recognition of indigenous rights whatsoever…. This will give the first language ever for upholding the rights of what are clearly the most marginalized and endangered groups in society.”
On the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada website (www.ainc-inac.gc.ca) the federal government lays out its position against the declaration. It is concerned that the declaration “could be interpreted to support claims to broad ownership over traditional territories even where rights to such territories were lawfully ceded through treaty” and “the text does not recognize that rights to lands and resources need to be balanced with the rights of others.”
The government is also concerned that “free, prior and informed consent” could give Aboriginal Peoples a veto over decisions about land use on their traditional territory.
The declaration states that Aboriginal Peoples should have the right to self-government. The federal government says federal and provincial laws have to have “paramountcy” over self-government powers. The federal government also objected to a requirement that Aboriginal Peoples receive redress for loss and damage of traditional lands, territories and resources, arguing that such rights can be “legally extinguished” through the signing of a treaty.
In the statement, the federal government argues that Canada has a “long and proud tradition” of supporting and advancing aboriginal rights and is committed to further work in that area.
Benjamin says the Canadian government seems to be suggesting that existing laws and policies in Canada “should be the gold standard in the world. To suggest that Canada should not aspire higher and that no one else in the world should aspire higher is really quite unacceptable.”
Benjamin says the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and various United Nations bodies have been highly critical of Canada’s treatment of Aboriginal Peoples. “It is quite clear there are profound inequalities in the process by which land and resource disputes in Canada are discussed and resolved. The changes that are needed aren’t cosmetic changes or small-scale changes. We need a new relationship, a new partnership.
“The current reality is, far too often Canadian officials, and lower courts especially, discount Aboriginal Peoples’ rights out of hand. They look at the economic value of developing a piece of land for oil and gas, for logging and they assign such a high value for that and really assign no value to indigenous peoples’ traditional land,” he says.
He adds that the Supreme Court has already made court decisions that obligate the federal government to consult with Aboriginal Peoples, but “the day-to-day practice is governments assume that they have full jurisdiction over indigenous people’s traditional land and territories.”
Benjamin says the federal government also can’t argue that all aboriginal rights to their traditional territory have been extinguished by treaties, because they still have the right to practise their traditional pursuits, such as hunting, fishing and trapping on the land. In some cases the government allows those rights to be jeopardized when development occurs. “Aboriginal people have rights to their land. It doesn’t mean to say it’s a right that can’t be shared with other people. The right to the land could be a shared right,” he says.
Benjamin says Canada’s opposition to the declaration tars the country’s reputation as a human rights leader. “It’s a clear indication human rights are being put aside and that’s harmful across the board. It hurts Canada’s leadership. To really do good work at the United Nations a country really has to show they’re standing on principle,” he says.