Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
August - 2006Canada votes against rights declaration
By Paul Barnsley
Windspeaker Staff Writer
GENEVA
After more than a decade of international intrigue, the United Nations draft declaration on Indigenous rights will finally go before the UN general assembly for ratification later this year, despite the efforts of Canadian government representatives.
The June 29 vote of the new 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council, which replaces the much criticized UN Human Rights Commission, was 30 in favor and two against, with 12 abstentions and three countries absent.
Canada and Russia were the only countries to vote against the declaration. The Canadian vote generated an angry reaction throughout the human rights community. In Canada, Opposition members said the move reveals that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is not interested in Aboriginal rights.
"Is this what passes for leadership?" asked Liberal Indian Affairs Critic Anita Neville on June 30. "For 20 years, Canada had taken a leadership role in seeing this declaration developed. Canada was a driving force in ensuring the resolution could overcome any roadblocks in its way. Now, at the moment where Canada was needed the most to give approval to the resolution, we have turned our backs on it, thanks to the Conservative government."
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice defended the decision to vote against, saying the terms of the draft declaration could have unforeseen and unintended consequences in Canada. He and representatives of the other large former British colonies - the United States, Australia and New Zealand - have asked that certain parts of the declaration be re-written. Neville blasted that position.
"The government's argument that the draft resolution may be inconsistent with Canadian laws is a non-starter," she said."The wording of the declaration explicitly states that the declaration must be interpreted in a fair and balanced manner with other laws and standards, the principles of democracy and good government in support of the rights of all. The declaration is a non-binding document. It is a statement of aspiration. Approving it would simply provide Canada's Aboriginal population with a sign of good faith."
NDP critic for Aboriginal Affairs Jean Crowder said she was "appalled" by Canada's actions.
"It is a slap in the face to Aboriginal peoples in Canada for the Conservatives to tell our representatives in Geneva to vote against sending the declaration to the general assembly," said Crowder. "I was at a land claims conference in Gatineau (Quebec) this weekend and everyone I spoke to brought up the declaration on Indigenous peoples' rights as an indication of how this new government really feels about honoring its commitments to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. They feel betrayed because the government turned its back on this ambitious document."
Aboriginal leaders also took aim at the federal government.
"Canada's opposition to the declaration has soured the first meeting of the Human Rights Council," said Beverly Jacobs, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada."The council was created in the hope that states would set aside domestic considerations and work impartially to advance the human rights of all. It's a bitter disappointment that Canada would mar the very first session by openly pursuing a dubious domestic agenda."
"We are grateful that the council has recognized the importance and urgency of moving ahead with human rights protections for Indigenous peoples," said National Chief Phil Fontaine. "It is very unfortunate that in trying to stand in the way of the declaration, Canada has done so much harm to its credibility and influence on a council that it worked so hard to create."
International observers also criticized Canada,Äôs actions in Geneva.
"We are outraged that Canada would demonstrate such bad faith in opposing a text that it helped write," said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada. "It is even more astounding that Canada would then try to persuade other states that another round of negotiations is needed. It was fortunate, though embarrassing for all Canadians, that Canada quickly found itself isolated on a council that was prepared to move forward with a principled defense of Indigenous peoples' human rights."
Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, wrote a long letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper two days before the vote, urging that Canada not work to undermine ratification of the declaration. After the vote Phillip blasted the federal government.
"Since the federal election, Canada,Äôs consistent and evolving discriminatory actions towards Indigenous people at both the domestic and international levels are disgraceful. This attitude is reflected in the gross failure to support the Kelowna accord and now evident in its conduct as a member of the Human Rights Council. As a council member, Canada agreed and is required to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, but its actions against the approval of the draft declaration are totally contrary with this essential commitment."
Kenneth Deer, chairman of the UN's Aboriginal caucus, was in Geneva for the vote. He said Prentice's claim that the agreement could have a negative effect on existing self-government agreements in Canada is not credible.
"It recognizes what's already happened, anything positive. What it does do is it gives alternatives if things break down. For instance, treaty negotiations. If treaties are being violated and you can't get any domestic satisfaction, the declaration suggests that there should be an impartial board that would look at those kinds of disputes, something outside the jurisdiction of Canada or outside Indigenous jurisdiction, something that,Äôs really neutral. It's non-binding. It's just to put pressure on governments to be more honest," he said.
Deer said the Canadian government betrayed Indigenous people.
"When we talk about betrayal, we're not fooling around. We don't throw those words around lightly. And we're not the only ones that feel betrayed; other governments feel betrayed. They told us so. The UK said Canada was disingenuous because they get the feeling that Canada was against the declaration all along and was stringing everybody along. They're pissed," he said.
As editor of the Kahnawake-based Eastern Door weekly newspaper, Deer vividly remembers the actions of the Mulroney government in the days before the confrontation at Oka in 1990. He sees parallels in the actions of the Harper government.
"I can use a term that the other reporters won't use: I think we're heading into a dark age of relations between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian government. I'm not saying the Harper government. I'm saying the Canadian government because it doesn't matter if it's a Liberal or a Conservative or NDP, it doesn't matter. It's the government of Canada that you negotiate with," he said.
"When the prime minister of Canada signed the Kelowna agreement, he signed on behalf of Canada and on behalf of Canadians. When another prime minister comes along and tears that up, he diminishes the value of the prime minister's signature. Who can Indigenous people trust if you can't trust the prime minister of Canada?"
Deer believes the general assembly will approve the declaration later this year.
"December 10 is international human rights day. That would be the most logical time," he said. "I anticipate it'll be passed. It should be passed by consensus. But if they want to call for a vote then we'll have to make sure governments are supporting it. If the same ratio of governments holds, it,Äôll pass easily. The governments that voted for it will vote for it again and carry other governments. If Canada, the U.S. and Australia want to water it down, those governments won't want to water it down."
Some observers say that the United States, which is not a member of the Human Rights Council, was against the declaration and asked Canada to oppose it. Talk at the UN, which Deer said was prompted by a U.S. initiative, was that there would be no further funding for work on the declaration.
"So the chairman said ,'If that's the case then I will decide.' He proposed wording that would satisfy no one but satisfy everyone. The majority of governments saw the wording and said, 'We don't like it but we can live with it.' We would have had consensus," he said.
Canada made a point of making its position as visible as possible, Deer added.
"It's one thing to vote against, but it was Canada that asked for a roll call vote. If they hadn't done that, I don't think Russia would have voted against it and it would have passed by consensus," he said.
He suggested that the government ignored advice from its officials.
"I think the diplomatic corps were suggesting don't do it. The decision to go ahead with it came from Ottawa, from Prentice and Harper. I don't think they took any advice from their diplomatic corps," he said.
More Windspeaker Articles