The Government of Canada (read Stephen Harper) joined with the United States (read George W. Bush), Australia (Prime Minister John Howard) and New Zealand (Prime Minister Helen Clark) this week in opposing a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One hundred and forty three nations voted in favour of the Declaration, eleven abstained but only these four, including Canada voted against the Declaration.

I suspect it is only coincidence that all four leaders are right wing conservatives. Surely it is only coincidence that all four spent the earlier part of this week in Australia discussing Asian Pacific policy and a nuclear energy partnership that could see uranium-producing nations, including Canada be charged with disposing of and/or storing the world’s nuclear waste. I’m certain that it is only coincidence that three of the four (New Zealand being the exception) are non-supporters of the Kyoto Accord on climate change remedies.

It’s also interesting that three of the four leaders were early supporters of the invasion of Iraq, including our own Prime Minister Harper. In the days leading up to the Iraq foray, New Zealand refused to support the invasion but after a series of high-level rebukes and trade retaliation by the Bush Administration, New Zealand’s Labour government decided to send troops and army engineers to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2003, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark announced that 60 defense-force-engineers would be sent to help “rebuild” Iraq and a contingent of 100 armed soldiers would be sent to Afghanistan to operate alongside so-called “provincial reconstruction teams”.

Washington immediately moderated weeks of diplomatic hostilities and warmly welcomed the decision as a “meaningful contribution”. U.S. State Department spokesman Phillip Reeker declared that New Zealand had demonstrated a “strong and abiding” commitment as a “partner in the struggle against terrorism.” Okay, I guess we can agree that 100 armed soldiers would be a significant force alongside 160,000 American invaders.

Canada’s Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl says the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not balanced and conflicts with Canada's Charter of Rights. There is irony in that defense, given that the Federal Progressive Conservative Party (predecessor of the amalgam of Canada’s Reform Party, Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party) opposed the Charter of Rights because it feared liberal bias among judges, should courts be called upon to enforce rights. Conservatives argued further that elected politicians should be trusted rather than the Courts because judges had used the Charter to undermine the powers of Parliament.

In an address to the United Nations General Assembly this week, Canada's UN ambassador, John McNee, said Canada had "significant concerns" over the Declaration's wording on provisions addressing lands and resources, as well as an article calling on states to obtain prior informed consent with indigenous groups before enacting new laws or administrative measures.

Prime Minister Harper had earlier expressed concerns about the language the declaration contained. "We shouldn't vote for things on the basis of political correctness; we should vote on the basis of what's in the document," Harper said. But human rights and aboriginal groups claim Harper's Conservatives launched a well-financed campaign to derail the declaration and undermine a process supported by the previous Liberal government.

The Government's argument that the Declaration goes against the Charter of Rights doesn't stand up, says Paul Joffe, a member of the legal team that has tried to convince countries to support the human rights of indigenous peoples. "We find that totally incredulous because the Declaration expressly states that in the exercise of the rights, every right has to respect the human rights of others," said Joffe.

Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, says Canada's refusal to support the declaration is an embarrassment. He says the government is betraying Canada's worldwide legacy as a protector of human rights by going against a declaration Canadians helped draft. Fontaine points out that the Declaration does not include any form of aboriginal veto and would not trump domestic law. "It's an aspirational document, neither convention nor treaty," he says".

“By opposing this Declaration, the Conservative government has signalled to Aboriginal Canadians that their rights aren't worth defending,” says Liberal leader Stéphane Dion. The Conservatives say the Declaration is flawed, vague and open to broad interpretation. Provisions on lands and resources could be used “to support claims to broad ownership rights over traditional territories, even where rights... were lawfully ceded through treaty,” says a synopsis of Canada's position on the Government’s Indian Affairs website.

The United States, Australia and New Zealand have significant Indigenous minorities and argued their national laws conflicted with the Declaration's sections covering native land rights, rights of redress for past wrongs and the right of Indigenous peoples to have a greater say - Canada called it a veto power - in future decision making affecting them.

This is not the first time Conservatives have turned their back on First Nations people. The Kelowna Accord was signed by federal, provincial and native leaders just before the election in December 2005, a $5.1-billion program to fund health, education and housing programs. In March 2007 Parliament voted on a private member’s bill to resurrect the $5.1-billion initiative but the minority Conservative government ignored the vote.

To be fair, there may be issues that support Canada’s opposition to the UN Declaration. They could be legal, precedent, ideological or other but it seems to me that Canada could have acquitted itself more responsibly at the United Nations, by either abstaining from the vote or by introducing an amendment to the Declaration that would have clearly articulated this Country’s support for and embracement of its First Nations people.



Partnership with Bush and Howard (both on their way out) is not my idea of astute political judgment.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com