Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have all of the experience and personal knowledge that my colleague the parliamentary secretary has, but I do know that there were a number of attempts throughout the 1980s and 1990s by a number of different Canadian governments to work at achieving this UN declaration to affirm the rights of indigenous people around the world. It's my understanding that no Canadian government up until this point has in fact supported or agreed to the text in its current form.
So that's one concern I have: we need to have full discussion by all parties on this prior to moving ahead with this.
Currently, Canada does have constitutionally entrenched aboriginal rights. We believe that those constitutionally entrenched aboriginal rights represent clearer and more effective guidance than what is outlined in the current draft declaration.
The other point that needs to be made--and my colleague made this already, in terms of the divisive nature of what this could accomplish--is that we believe that for the final declaration to be useful, it will have to balance clearly and realistically the rights of all citizens, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, in a way that promotes harmony and reconciliation, and it must not be open to interpretations that will cause further domestic confusion.
The point was also raised previously that this text revives the rights of aboriginal peoples that have been extinguished for hundreds of years, going back to treaties that have been negotiated since 1763.
As I pointed out the last time we discussed this particular motion, it's contrary to the National Defence Act. It actually prohibits the Minister of Defence from exercising his or her authority without the consent of aboriginal communities.
I could go on. The text is also inconsistent with the fundamental policies under which Canada operates in addressing aboriginal land and governance claims, including our policies on comprehensive claims, specific claims, own-source revenue, and inherent right to self-government.
The text also creates present-day rights to restitution for historical acts that were completely lawful at the time. I think that's important for us to understand. These acts were completely lawful at the time. This would create present-day rights for restitution, and in that sense, it's inconsistent with Canada's stated understanding of international law.
There are a number of other factors, I think, that we need to be very careful with. I think I want to go back to the first point, which was the fact that this has been an ongoing discussion for many years. Many successive Canadian governments have worked to achieve this declaration, and it would be, I think, improper for us to proceed with it at this time.