Home and Native Land - I

Last Thursday, Canada was one of only four countries to vote against a United Nations declaration on aboriginal rights. The non-binding declaration passed 143 to 4, with 11 countries abstaining. Interestingly enough, the four negative votes were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States -- all countries with large land claim issues that are either under negotiation or the subject of court cases.

The government defended its decision to vote by citing concerns regarding the wording of the text. In particular, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, John McNee, mentioned concerns regarding provisions for land claims. Interestingly enough, the four countries that voted against the declaration -- Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia -- all include aboriginal populations who are either negotiating or litigating land claims.

I am not sure I buy the second argument against voting for the declaration -- that its wording is inconsistent with Canada's Constitution, the Charter, and other acts of Parliament. Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl is on record as saying that the portion of the declaration that says laws affecting aboriginals must only be passed with their prior consent would be unworkable because there are 650 First Nations in Canada.

As might be expected, opposition parties strongly criticized the government for voting against the resolution, in part because the declaration is non-binding on any government. According to Jean Crowder, the New Democratic Party's native affairs critic, "It is an aspirational document," New Democratic native affairs critic Jean Crowder is reported as saying. "It wouldn't contravene laws that are in place."

Similarly, a September 6th press release from United Nations officials emphasized that the declaration does not create new rights for aboriginal groups. Which makes one wonder why they spent twenty years coming up with the declaration.