Actions speak louder than words [column]

It’s been three years since the United Nations ratified the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It also marks three years since Canada was one of only four countries globally to reject the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Since then, Australia and New Zealand have reversed their decisions and now endorse the declaration, and the U.S. has implied that it intends to work towards endorsement.

In the March Speech from the Throne, then Governor-General Michaelle Jean stated that “our government will take steps to endorse” the declaration. However, we have yet to see any progress. According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canada’s largest issue with the declaration is the wording and the concern that the collective human rights outlined in the document will trump individual human rights.

One of their largest concerns is the declaration’s use of the phrase “free, prior, and informed consent.” Canada’s track record with Indigenous peoples clearly illustrates that informed consent from Indigenous peoples is not one of the country’s priorities.

On the contrary, many of us would argue that the underlying truth behind Canada’s unwillingness to endorse the declaration has more to do with exploitation of land and resources than a concern for human rights. Canada endorsement of the document effectually means airing the country’s dirty laundry for all to see. Let me illustrate my point.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Alberta Tar Sands, otherwise known as “the largest and most environmentally toxic industrial project in history.” Recently, it has become quite obvious that governmental reports backing the tar sands are highly lacking in transparency and factual information.

For instance, Preston McEachern, head of Science and Innovation with Alberta Environment, alleged that “contamination in area soils and rivers is natural and poses no serious health risk.” However, a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states quite the opposite.

The study has found toxic heavy metals in regional waterways that exceed metal contamination levels up to 30 times those permitted in Canadian and provincial guidelines. These toxic metals include mercury, arsenic, beryllium, copper, cadmium, thallium, lead, nickel, zinc and silver.

One only has to look as far as the Fort Chipewyan First Nation directly downstream from the tar sands to recognize that McEachern’s statements are false.

A 2009 Alberta Cancer Board Study found that cancer rates within the Fort Chipewyan community are an astonishing 30 times higher than what they should be. Fish and moose meat from the region often contains arsenic and the water is no longer drinkable. In this case, the federal government would have to be held accountable for breaching the declaration, especially Article 32 which demands that “States shall consult and cooperate…with the indigenous peoples…to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources…”

Despite wide opposition from both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples, the next proposed venture is the development of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. The pipeline would carry approximately 525, 000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta’s tar sands to Kitimat, B.C. across unceded territories claimed by over 20 First Nations. Endorsement of the UN declaration would again mean that Canada would have to acquire “free, prior, and informed consent” from First Nations, most of which are fundamentally opposed to the development of the pipeline.

It’s not difficult to connect the dots and to recognize whose interests the Canadian government is truly protecting.