FELDSTED - The government and indigenous people have different definitions and there is “no meeting of minds”. Until there is, there can be no reconciliation
A serious impediment to reconciliation is the failure to reach an agreement on what “treaty rights” are, and are not. The government and indigenous people have different definitions and there is “no meeting of minds”. Until there is, there can be no reconciliation.
Adding another set of “rights” created by an unelected body with no responsibility for the outcome of imposing the declaration on Canada will result in problems our leaders are not considering. There has been no serious discussion or debate on the merits of adopting UNDRIP ... which is a disservice to all Canadians, including indigenous people.
Under a revised draft resolution, whose main sponsor was Peru, with several European and Latin American countries listed as co-sponsors, the full text would have been adopted by the Assembly in relatively short order. But an initiative led by Namibia, co-sponsored by several African countries, resulted in the draft being amended.
Finally, on 13 September 2007, UNDRIP was adopted by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstentions (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine).
In May 2016, the government Justin Trudeau officially removed Canada’s objector status to UNDRIP, almost a decade after it was adopted by the General Assembly. There was no public discussion or debate on the issue before the change was made.
The legislation was due back in the Senate Chamber this week, where it remains essentially stalled by pushback from Conservative senators who opposed parts of the bill, mainly a section they argue would give veto to Indigenous groups over natural resources projects.