I think that's a real mischaracterization of the way the General Assembly works at the UN. When the General Assembly has a resolution before it, states have the opportunity to vote for or against it, or to abstain. If you're not in the room, that's irrelevant, and it's not counted as anything. In this case, four states voted against it, and all four of them have reversed their position. Canada reversed its position in 2010. When those four states reversed their positions, that made the UN declaration a consensus international instrument. Again, abstentions don't have any legal bearing either on the vote. Once it becomes a consensus instrument, it means no state in the world formally opposes it.
For this declaration, it's been almost eight years since that happened. It has also been reaffirmed by the General Assembly, and Canada, at least eight times by consensus, so at the international level they have reaffirmed their consensus support for the UN declaration.
I've seen that passage of Mr. Isaac's before, and I think his math doesn't add up. I think if you add up the number of member states in the UN, there's something wrong with his math. I'm not going to go into that now, but I would say that it was a very bizarre interpretation of the voting rules within the United Nations.