http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8e690438-175d-49f3-abdd-80994b7a4a0e
Canada risks its nice image
John Ivison, National Post
Published: Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Canada's image as the Rotarian of the world community is about to be tarnished on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly.
The idea of a polite country that forges consensus, even when the results are flawed, has already been challenged by the announcement from Stephen Harper's government that Canada will not meet its Kyoto commitments.
Now Canada is set to oppose a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples at the UN, a decision Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said will prove to be a "stain on Canada's reputation."
Canada has already opposed a draft version of the declaration. It lost a 30-2 decision at the UN's Human Rights Council, siding with Russia in opposition to a document that said indigenous people should be free from discrimination, with "the right to be considered different and to be respected as such."
The issue will move to the General Assembly next month and, in the eyes of the world, Canada could end up looking as if it favours discrimination against native people.
Things are, of course, not quite that simple. But Fontaine said he is "perplexed" why Canada is risking international opprobrium over an agreement he calls "an aspirational document" that is not legally binding.
"I've very disappointed that Canada would choose to walk with Russia on this matter," he said.
He said the Canadian position has shifted significantly under the Conservatives, and he believes the root cause may be opposition from the Prime Minister, who may have philosophical objections to any agreement that recognizes collective rights over individual rights. "It would appear to me that [Indian Affairs] Minister [Jim] Prentice is uncomfortable defending the government position," he said.
For his part though, Prentice is adamant he is the one running the file and that objections are practical, rather than philosophical. "This is not purely an aspirational document. Previous court decisions in Canada have referenced work of United Nations bodies and used them to interpret the law of Canada. To say it is only aspirational overlooks the fact that it contains a number of inconsistencies with Canadian law and policy," he said yesterday.
Prentice said such countries as Australia, New Zealand and the United States, which are not members of the Human Rights Council, have expressed their opposition to the draft declaration because it was not consistent with their policies.
Problems range from land rights to self-government; from environmental rights to military policy, he said. For example, one article says "indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired."
"Nothing could be more inconsistent with 200 years of Canadian treaty-making than that," said Prentice. "We have signed over 500 treaties over the last 200 years, which involved securing the consent of Aboriginal peoples to reconcile land ownership issues. So how can we conceivably sign a document in 2006 that puts all that at risk? ... I'm the Minister, and I'm quite resolute that this will not happen on my watch."
Canada has responded by calling for more discussion time to alter the text to accommodate concerns of countries that have constitutionally entrenched rights for indigenous people.
Both Fontaine and Prentice make a convincing case. Who can argue that international protection for indigenous people is a bad thing? On the other hand, the document is fundamentally flawed. One article says military activities can't take place on land that has traditionally been Aboriginal, which would mean the Department of National Defence would have to seek the permission of First Nations every time it had to act in time of emergency, conflict or disaster. Several other articles would give First Nations a veto over matters that affect not only them, but also the broader population. "How are you going to administer the country?" Prentice said.
Yet a call for more time and discussion seems redundant. The current document has been 20 years in the making. That's two-zero. Some countries that voted in favour of the declaration only did so because, like Britain, they have no indigenous peoples. France voted for its adoption but indicated "collective rights cannot prevail over individual rights" -- a position as contradictory as it is unsurprising. India voted in favour but said it defined its entire population as indigenous. And on and on.
As someone once commented about the UN, if it is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words. This should be borne in mind when the General Assembly adopts the declaration and the Harper government is dismissed as a bunch of Western cowboys.
jivison@nationalpost.com
Canada risks its nice image
John Ivison, National Post
Published: Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Canada's image as the Rotarian of the world community is about to be tarnished on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly.
The idea of a polite country that forges consensus, even when the results are flawed, has already been challenged by the announcement from Stephen Harper's government that Canada will not meet its Kyoto commitments.
Now Canada is set to oppose a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples at the UN, a decision Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said will prove to be a "stain on Canada's reputation."
Canada has already opposed a draft version of the declaration. It lost a 30-2 decision at the UN's Human Rights Council, siding with Russia in opposition to a document that said indigenous people should be free from discrimination, with "the right to be considered different and to be respected as such."
The issue will move to the General Assembly next month and, in the eyes of the world, Canada could end up looking as if it favours discrimination against native people.
Things are, of course, not quite that simple. But Fontaine said he is "perplexed" why Canada is risking international opprobrium over an agreement he calls "an aspirational document" that is not legally binding.
"I've very disappointed that Canada would choose to walk with Russia on this matter," he said.
He said the Canadian position has shifted significantly under the Conservatives, and he believes the root cause may be opposition from the Prime Minister, who may have philosophical objections to any agreement that recognizes collective rights over individual rights. "It would appear to me that [Indian Affairs] Minister [Jim] Prentice is uncomfortable defending the government position," he said.
For his part though, Prentice is adamant he is the one running the file and that objections are practical, rather than philosophical. "This is not purely an aspirational document. Previous court decisions in Canada have referenced work of United Nations bodies and used them to interpret the law of Canada. To say it is only aspirational overlooks the fact that it contains a number of inconsistencies with Canadian law and policy," he said yesterday.
Prentice said such countries as Australia, New Zealand and the United States, which are not members of the Human Rights Council, have expressed their opposition to the draft declaration because it was not consistent with their policies.
Problems range from land rights to self-government; from environmental rights to military policy, he said. For example, one article says "indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired."
"Nothing could be more inconsistent with 200 years of Canadian treaty-making than that," said Prentice. "We have signed over 500 treaties over the last 200 years, which involved securing the consent of Aboriginal peoples to reconcile land ownership issues. So how can we conceivably sign a document in 2006 that puts all that at risk? ... I'm the Minister, and I'm quite resolute that this will not happen on my watch."
Canada has responded by calling for more discussion time to alter the text to accommodate concerns of countries that have constitutionally entrenched rights for indigenous people.
Both Fontaine and Prentice make a convincing case. Who can argue that international protection for indigenous people is a bad thing? On the other hand, the document is fundamentally flawed. One article says military activities can't take place on land that has traditionally been Aboriginal, which would mean the Department of National Defence would have to seek the permission of First Nations every time it had to act in time of emergency, conflict or disaster. Several other articles would give First Nations a veto over matters that affect not only them, but also the broader population. "How are you going to administer the country?" Prentice said.
Yet a call for more time and discussion seems redundant. The current document has been 20 years in the making. That's two-zero. Some countries that voted in favour of the declaration only did so because, like Britain, they have no indigenous peoples. France voted for its adoption but indicated "collective rights cannot prevail over individual rights" -- a position as contradictory as it is unsurprising. India voted in favour but said it defined its entire population as indigenous. And on and on.
As someone once commented about the UN, if it is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words. This should be borne in mind when the General Assembly adopts the declaration and the Harper government is dismissed as a bunch of Western cowboys.
jivison@nationalpost.com
