Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED - The government and indigenous people have different definitions and there is “no meeting of minds”. Until there is, there can be no reconciliation


Our “leaders” are really followers -- they are not interested in acting in the best interests of Canada and her people.

Four of the six party leaders are in favour of writing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian law. That will add to the complexity of reconciliation. If we were to adopt the UN Declaration (promulgated in 2007) it should be based on replacing all existing treaties.

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.


A UN working group started the process of drafting a declaration in 1988, and a first draft was prepared in 1994. On 28 December 2006, the Third Committee of the General Assembly (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) adopted a draft resolution to defer consideration and action on UNDRIP by the General Assembly, with the aim of concluding consideration of the Declaration before the end of its current sixty-first session.

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.

In its new form, the draft would have the Assembly decide “to defer consideration and action on UNDRIP to allow time for further consultations thereon”. Furthermore, the Assembly would also decide “to conclude consideration of the Declaration before the end of its sixty-first session”.

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.

*******************************
     
Bill C-262, federal legislation that would harmonize Canada’s laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, looked like it’s a lost cause.

The Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples committee voted earlier this month to pass Bill C-262, a private member’s bill sponsored by NDP MP Romeo Saganash and passed in the House of Commons last year.

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.

Ref: https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/canadas-undrip-legislation-headed-for-defeat/

Our leaders are not considering that adopting UNDRIP must not be done without a close examination of unintended consequences. That is not leadership, or fair to Canadians.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...
Post a Comment
Read more

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...
1 comment
Read more

Labels

Show more