Madam Speaker, I am standing to speak to a question I raised in the House concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I know the government had indicated in the throne speech that it would take the next steps in support of the UN declaration and yet we have not seen any action.
I will begin reading a statement out of the preamble from the United Nations declaration. It states:
Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.
It would seem that kind of statement is an important reason for Canada to sign on to this declaration.
In a letter to the Prime Minister dated June 9, 2010, signed by a number of organizations, including the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit from British Columbia, it outlines a number of concerns and reasons why the declaration should be signed. The letter reads:
The government announced in the Speech from the Throne that it will take steps to endorse the Declaration “in a manner that is fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws”. Over 100 experts and scholars have concluded that the Declaration is fully consistent with the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is a vital tool for their interpretation and implementation. Asserting that international human rights standards should be constrained by domestic law, contrary to the principles of international law, would detract from the value of the endorsement.
The Declaration includes provisions that explicitly state that any interpretation is to be balanced with other human rights protections and principles of justice and equality. Canadian officials, with Indigenous representatives, played a central role in drafting these provisions. There is no need to assert conditions or qualifications on support for the Declaration.
A central objective of any international human rights instrument is to encourage States to reform laws, policies and practices so that human rights are respected. International human rights standards cannot merely condone or sustain existing State practices. To limit UN declarations in this way would defeat the purpose of having international standards.
Canada has never before placed blanket qualifications on its support for international human rights instruments. To impose such limitation on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would constitute a discriminatory double standard.
We respectfully remind the government that the Declaration, like all human rights declarations adopted by the General Assembly, is universally applicable to all States. For endorsement to be meaningful, it must be made in good faith with a commitment to work with Indigenous Peoples and civil society to ensure Canada lives up to the Declaration’s standards.
Canadian courts are free to rely on the UN Declaration and other international instruments in interpreting Indigenous peoples’ human rights. The government’s endorsement of the Declaration is not necessary for it to be applicable in Canada.
In a recent brief to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Attorney General of Canada argued: “Canada’s position on the Declaration has not changed. Consequently the Declaration should be given no weight as an interpretive source of law.” This argument is not supportable or sustainable. If the federal government is not prepared to apply the Declaration as a source of interpretation of its obligations, any endorsement will be hollow and will achieve a negative response from inside and outside Canada.
There is more in this letter but they conclude by saying:
In its preamble, the Declaration is described as “a standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect”.
The question still becomes: When will the government endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?