The Ripple Effect Newsletter
February 2010
So here is the question. “Why would the Supreme Court of Canada want Canadians and their governments to reconcile their differences with the Aboriginal people of Canada.?”
One could conclude from the question that courts believe that the current state of affairs is unacceptable. I know Aboriginal people feel that way. For the past 25 years we here at Ripple Effects Ltd. have attempted to build the bridges of learning, understanding, clarification and empathy by facilitating over 1000 workshops, online training programs, speeches, magazine articles, newspaper articles, websites and more.
Over time more and more individuals, companies and various organizations have finally concluded that Aboriginal Awareness is in demand and mostly certainly needed in every segment of Canadian society. In the recent past governments have decided that they must learn more about Aboriginal people and their communities following in the footsteps of industry which began this learning process some 30 years ago. Now, educational institutions, professional organizations from every industry including health, human resources, engineering, trades training, unions, forestry, transportation, mining and so on all agree that a confrontational environment is undesirable and collaboration and cooperation is the way to go. To achieve that we must learn every thing we can about the Aboriginal people, their desires, expectations, hopes, histories, cultures so we can build bridges with respect and trust for mutual benefit.
The inclusion of Aboriginal people into mainstream society is absolutely necessary. Learning how seems to be the real challenge as we move forward. In most relationship building attempts and scenarios today those attempting to build the bridges unfortunately just not adequately prepared. Fortunately there are many Aboriginal owned and operated Aboriginal Awareness Training companies out there now ready and willing to assist.
Most Sincerely,
Robert Laboucane
President, Ripple Effects Ltd.
Story 1
Canada's Colonialism
Alana Lajoie O'Malley
Stephen Harper wants the world to know how great Canada is. Fantastic. I like Canada too. It is a great country. But it could be greater still if every citizen really examined the relationship between Canada’s past and Canada’s present. And I have a suggestion about who should go first in this reckoning. At the G20 Summit last September, our prime minister boasted that we “have no history of colonialism." That the leader of our country can stand in front of dignitaries from around the world and speak these words is a testament to just how far we have to go in really understanding our national history.
While it is true that Canada has never had a formal colonial relationship with another country, we do have a colonial history. It just sits a little closer to home. To ignore this is akin to overlooking the crimes of a domestic abuser because they are only committed in his or her home.
Colonialism means acquiring control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. That Canada’s foundational history fits squarely into this definition should be a matter beyond debate.
It is time we faced the truth. Canada was and still is a colonial project.
Truth #1:
Canada was created through a process of acquiring control over lands occupied by other nations.
Let us use one example, just to make things clear. In 1878, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald instituted the National Policy to establish greater national cohesion. The policy included a commitment to the construction of a transcontinental railway, a protective tariff on imports, and western settlement. Its implementation required land: land for the railway, land for settlers, and land over which Canada could exercise the political control necessary to exploit the West’s natural wealth. To get it, Canada undertook the project of western treaty-making, implemented the reserve system administered under the Indian Act, and introduced land scrip for the Metis.
It is true. Canada was created through a process of acquiring control over lands on which Aboriginal Peoples already lived.
Truth #2:
Canada was built as a settler society.
Again, this is common knowledge. As many of you will recall, the first permanent settlements in what would become Canada were established in the name of France and England in the 1600's. Statistics Canada proudly explains that Jean Talon conducted a census of New France – North America’s first – between 1665 and 1666. The census enumerated 3,215 inhabitants of European descent, including three schoolmasters, five bakers, nine millers, and 36 carpenters. These were settlers. And their settler societies would eventually extend from coast to coast.
Let us also recall that it was the decedents of these and of later settlers who would form and control the Canadian government. Until 1960, Status Indians could not vote in a federal election unless they first gave up their right to be registered under the Indian Act, their treaty rights and their statutory right to property tax exemption. That is, until they agreed to become part of the settler society. Since Confederation, only 15 Metis, eight First Nations, and five Inuit have served as Members of Parliament. Today, of 304 MPs, three are Metis, one is First Nations, and one is Inuit. That means despite forming 3.8 per cent of Canada’s current population, Aboriginal people constitute less than one per cent of federally elected officials.
It is true. Canada’s government was, and continues to be, a Parliament for the settler majority.
Truth #3:
Canada’s economy was built, and continues to depend upon, the exploitation of Canada’s land and resources for the benefit of its settlers.
Canada’s reliance on natural resources has been an integral part of its economic strategy since its inception. In the early sixteenth century, European fishermen took cod from the Grand Banks off Newfoundland and the Gulf of St Lawrence. These same fishermen began trading their European wares for furs caught by local First Nations people. The rest, as we say, is history.
The establishment of other primary industries, including agriculture, forestry, mining, and oil and gas development, followed quickly. Today, these primary industries consistently contribute between 5 and 10 per cent of our total economy. This makes the question of who owns, controls, and benefits from these resources as paramount today as it was when Macdonald instituted the National Policy in 1878.
Disputes over the control of these resources continue to abound. Indigenous people from Akwasasne, Tyendinaga, Six Nations, Athabasca Chipewyan, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Secwepemc, to name only some, are confronting governments and industries engaged in mineral exploration, logging, and resource extraction activities that they argue infringe on their autonomy over the lands left to them during the treaty process and fail to benefit their communities.
It is true. Canada’s economy was built, and continues to depend upon, the exploitation of Canada’s land and resources for the benefit of its settler society.
Truth and Reconciliation
These three truths matter. They tell us that Canada does have a colonial history. The fact that our prime minister could publicly claim otherwise while there are so many pending land claims also speaks to our colonial present – one that continues to pit the priorities of settlers against Aboriginal claims to use their lands as they see fit.
It is about time we confronted our past head on.
On June 11, 2008, Stephen Harper apologized for the Canadian government’s role in the residential school system. This apology no doubt directed more attention to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was established “to inform all Canadians about what happened in Indian Residential Schools” and “to guide and inspire Aboriginal peoples and Canadians in a process of reconciliation and renewed relationships that are based on mutual understanding and respect.”
The residential school system inflicted two related, but distinct, offences on Aboriginal people. The first was, of course, the incidences of abuse and neglect suffered by students. The second was the policy of assimilation that motivated much of the ethos of these schools – the desire to “kill the Indian in the Child.”
This policy cannot be separated from Canada’s colonial history. The policy assumed that the economic, social, political, and religious practices and values of the colonists should shape Canada’s national identity. It was motivated by the desire to maintain the dominance of settler communities. In this sense, might we not understand the residential school system as a mechanism with which to break Aboriginal cultural connections to the land in order to facilitate their domination?
Once this truth becomes part of our common parlance, we will be able to claim to be truly engaged in a process of Truth and Reconciliation. The first step is, of course, to recognize our colonial history.
We need not be afraid of our colonial history. In fact, it is the denial of it that fuels the conflicts that continue to simmer and flare up between Aboriginal communities and the Government of Canada.
If we as a nation could look at our past with clear eyes, we would recall that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 named Aboriginal peoples as independent nations. We would recall that it is members of these independent nations that are seeking to reclaim their culture and assert their rights to lands they consider to belong to them. We would recognize that living in a place with such rich diversity and tradition is part of what makes Canada great, and so we would seek to respect all the claims to Canada’s wealth.
Stephen Harper might have been wrong about Canada’s history of colonialism, but he was right about Canada being great. Right now, we have an opportunity to show ourselves and the world just how great we can be.
Story 2
Bill C-300: A road to redemption for mining companies
Lucie Lamarche
Bill C-300, “an act respecting corporate accountability for the activities of mining, oil or gas in developing countries,” has generated heated public debate, as well as strong opposition from the Canadian mining sector.
It seeks to impose accountability on mining, oil, or gas companies that are found to be complicit in violations of human rights or environmental standards. If passed, the act would provide the Canadian government with long overdue regulatory powers over Canadian corporate activity abroad.
It would impose human rights and other standards on Canadian extractive companies operating in developing countries, and allow the investigation of allegations of non-compliance. In cases of non-compliance, it would require the Canada Pension Plan to divest its interest, Export Development Canada to withdraw financial support, and Canadian trade commissions and embassies to cease their support and promotion of the company’s activities.
With the prorogation of Parliament, all government bills currently before the House effectively die. However, private members’ bills do not suffer the same fate. Bill C-300 was in its second reading when Parliament was prorogued and will be deemed to be referred back to the standing committee on foreign affairs and international development when the next session begins in March of this year.
The mining industry had called in its top guns to testify against the bill before the standing committee. Among other things, industry representatives and their lawyers argued the bill is flawed and unnecessary, and it would undermine the global competitiveness of Canadian extractive companies operating in developing countries.
Gordon Peeling, president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada, stated in his testimony that there already exist “a wide range of international guidelines and standards that provide appropriate reference points for CSR-related processes and issues.”
The director of government relations for Kinross Gold Corp., Mac Penney, testified that “mining companies operate under a very high level of scrutiny and accountability . . . both in the developed and the developing world.”
Yet when Canadian companies operate outside Canada, they do so with little legal liability for activities that may violate international human rights norms.
International law, with the exception of international criminal law, does not impose human rights obligations directly on corporations. Under international human rights law, states themselves have international legal duties to protect the human rights of individuals subject to their jurisdiction.
However, for a number of reasons host states may be unable or unwilling to regulate the conduct of foreign companies, even where such conduct violates the host state’s international human rights obligations.
Home states, like Canada, are not required by international human rights law to regulate corporate activity outside their jurisdiction. There are no effective domestic legal mechanisms in place that require the assessment of the human rights impact of proposed investments in host states, to prevent such activity where it is clear there will be a negative human rights impact, or to monitor or sanction corporate conduct to ensure that Canadian investment abroad does not contribute to, or profit from, violations of human rights.
The patchwork of domestic laws and mechanisms that do exist, such as corporate and securities disclosure laws, shareholder proposals, and class action lawsuits, for example, have not been sufficient to ensure Canadian corporations do not become involved in violations of human rights.
Bill C-300 would help to address this regulatory void.
Other countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have considered domestic legislation to regulate the extraterritorial human rights conduct of companies. But so far, none of these bills has passed into law.
Should Canada be the first country to enact specific legislation to address corporate complicity in human rights abuses that do not occur on Canadian soil? There are strong arguments in favour of doing so.
Canada is home to over 75 per cent of the world’s largest exploration and mining companies, and the Canadian extractive industry has a huge presence abroad. A significant number of these companies operate in developing countries. Government estimates put Canadian extractive investment in these countries at $60 billion.
These companies are able to raise millions of dollars on the Vancouver and Toronto stock exchanges, which, according to the federal government, are “the world’s largest source of equity capital for mining companies undertaking exploration and development.”
Serious allegations have been made against some of Canada’s largest and most profitable extractive companies.
The most notorious example is Talisman Energy Inc.’s controversial investment in southern Sudan between 1998 and 2003 in the context of a long-running civil war. Talisman was implicated in egregious violations of human rights, including the intentional targeting and terrorizing of civilian populations by government of Sudan forces for the purpose of protecting the oilfields and oil infrastructure.
A class action lawsuit against Talisman under the U.S. Alien Tort Claims Act was dismissed in October 2009. However, human rights fact-finding missions, such as the 1999 Canadian Assessment Mission to Sudan (Harker Mission) and the 2001 Gagnon/Ryle mission found, among other things, clear evidence the infrastructure of the oil consortium (in which Talisman held a 25-per-cent interest) had been used for bombing and helicopter gunship attacks on villages in the oil exploration and development areas.
Since that time, and despite a growing number of allegations of corporate complicity in human rights and environmental abuses, the Canadian government has done little to address this problem.
In 2005, the foreign affairs and international trade committee called on the federal government to initiate a multi-stakeholder process with the goal of both strengthening existing corporate social responsibility programs and policies and developing new ones for Canadian extractive industries operating in developing countries.
The government responded by initiating a series of national roundtables on CSR and the Canadian extractive industry in developing countries. These consultations concluded in November 2006 and the roundtables advisory group — composed of members from industry, academia, and NGOs — produced a consensus report released in March 2007.
The report recommended the Canadian government create a comprehensive CSR framework with mechanisms to ensure accountability for companies that fail to comply with the required human rights standards.
The government’s response to the report — which came a full two years later — failed to adopt the most important of the advisory group’s recommendations. Instead, it promotes voluntary self-regulation by Canadian companies, with no reporting requirements or sanctions, and has created a complaints mechanism which allows for the investigation into allegations of human rights abuses by a Canadian company only in cases where the company consents.
Bill C-300 would provide the government with the ability to investigate and sanction corporate violations of specified international human rights standards. It would therefore implement the advisory group’s remaining core recommendations, to which industry agreed.
Testimony on the bill before the standing committee wrapped up in early December. Before prorogation, it only had two sessions remaining in which to consider amendments. Once the committee is reconstituted in the 41st session of Parliament, it will have 60 more days to consider the bill.
It has the discretion to deem the testimony that has already been heard as heard in the new session, and move on. If the government doesn’t push for more witnesses to testify, this would leave significant time for considering the bill clause by clause in committee before it is due to report to Parliament.
It is likely that certain amendments will be presented. The bill, as currently drafted, does not provide a grace period to allow a company to take steps to comply with the prescribed human rights and other standards before sanctions are imposed. Nor does it establish a review mechanism allowing for the withdrawal of sanctions where a company comes back into compliance. Industry has been calling for these procedural safeguards.
Whether or not bill C-300 reaches a third reading, it is significant that it has moved this far through the parliamentary process.
If it eventually comes into law, it will be a historic moment and a chance for Canada to begin to retrieve its international reputation as a leading proponent for the promotion and protection of international human rights. Until that time, however, it will be business as usual.
Story 3
Aboriginal Awareness Training Now Certified
Ripple Effects Ltd Aboriginal Awareness Training Seminars have gained approval by the University of British Columbia to qualify for the UBC Certificate in Mining Studies. EduMine is now offering the course to all its members.
"As presented at PDAC, Diavik, De Beers Canada, BHP Billiton, AMEC, and Golder Associates..."
Aboriginal Awareness Training Seminars have been specifically designed to raise the awareness of Resource Industry Personnel about Aboriginal peoples and their modern day challenges within their communities. These presentations provide the necessary information and knowledge to achieve the objectives of all the participants.
This program has been designed to create greater understanding and enhance communications between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. It serves as a tool for gaining awareness and understanding of a group of people who, through historical events, location, law, legislation and policies have remained separated, isolated, segregated and marginalized from mainstream society. The building of trusting and respectful relationships will occur through awareness, comfort, confidence and much improved communications.
You will learn about history, communication characteristics, consultation techniques and protocol, the business case, Aboriginal Relations Program Development, terminology, treaties, land claims, geography, demographics, political structures, decision-making, cost of the status quo, landmark court cases, best practices and so much more.
Story 4
Land Rights Resolution Update
Since the reclamation of our Douglas Creek Estates lands, the national and international focus has been on the Six Nations and their land rights issues. During the actual occupation, people from many countries of the World actually visited the site and left their flags and well wishes with the people.
Since that time there have been attempts to solve the rights issues through negotiations. To date the lack of resolution of the land rights of the Six Nations has only created division and distrust of the people against both Councils within the community. At no other time in our history has there been a more compelling time for us to pull together in unity than now.
Many times people who are not from Six Nations have asked why we did not follow through with the lawsuit against Canada, when as one high profile lawyer said “you had Canada on the ropes”. We can look back and accuse, harangue and criticize but will these actions produce positive results? I don’t think so.
Canada is basically not ready to get into substantive discussions and negotiations to solve our land rights issues. Firstly, they do not have the research on neither Six Nations existing claims nor those claims that are still to be filed. Secondly, they do not have the financial resources needed to justly compensate for these legitimate land rights issues.
In 1983 and in 1991, we went before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and made presentations on Six Nations grievances concerning our lost land and our lost trust accounts. These presentations were based on Six Nations having specifically defined trusts created by the Crown evolving from the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Great Britain’s October 25th 1784 Haldimand Proclamation establishing the Six Nations and lands under His Majesty’s protection. As well, the June 24, 1803 Order-in-Council investigated and acknowledged the trusts created by the Crown specifically for Six Nations with respect to their lands and annuities. It is clear that our relationship with Canada must be at a political level, not a bureaucratic level and any settlement must be perpetual and global in nature.
In 1991, the price for a global settlement at that time was estimated to be around $82 billion dollars. The actual figure was $82,202,759,831.04 billion dollars to resolve four unlawful expenditures of Six Nations Funds used to operate and run Canada’s infrastructure. MP Lise Bourgualt, (Argenteuil-Papineau, Quebec) was totally aghast at this figure and quickly stated that the figure was preposterous and that Canada could not possibly pay this amount. We countered by saying that we were not looking for settlements under the Canada Specific Claims Policy or the Comprehensive Claims
Policy, but based on the perpetual care and maintenance of our people through a global approach.
As the negotiations have evolved over the past three years, there appears to be a pattern as to how the federal negotiator is leading the negotiation table into a specific land claims process. First, the Table was looking at solving the Douglas Creek Estates through land returned to Six Nations. These lands included the Burtch Industrial farm, the Townsend lands and the South Cayuga Lands as promised by David Peterson, one of the former negotiators. This offer did not come to fruition.
In May 2007, the federal government offered $125 million for a package of claims and rights including Welland Canal, Grand River Navigation Company investment, Moulton Township (Block Five) and the Burtch Tract. Without receiving an explanation on how the sum was established, the negotiating team rejected this offer.
Next the federal negotiator guided the Table to one offer – the Welland Canal flooded lands between Cayuga and Dunnville. He made an offer of $26 million dollars to settle this particular land claim that was previously accepted as legitimate by Canada. The impasse came as a result of how Canada arrived at the $26.0 million dollar figure. Canada provided a five page document as to how they supposedly came up with $26.0 million and the HSN Negotiating team took this information to a University Economics professor to determine what a range of settlement could be considered. The professor determined that by Canada’s own methodology this land claim was worth anywhere between $500 million to $1.1 billion dollars. This information effectively killed any proposed settlement of the Welland Canal flooded lands.
The fourth attempt to reach some kind of successful negotiation from the federal negotiator’s point of view was to go to the Nathan Gage claim within the City of Brantford.
Therefore, one can determine that the federal negotiator really did not have a mandate to settle any Six Nations land rights, other than trying to get Six Nations to agree to a settlement under Canada’s Specific Claims Policy. In August of 2009 the Six Nations previously stated position was made formal through a written statement to Canada and Ontario. This position is that the only land rights settlement would be based on the original intent of the Haldimand Proclamation – the perpetual care and maintenance of the Six Nations people. In addition, settlement will include return of Six Nations land as parcels became available and the Six Nations money that was unaccounted for by successive British and Canadian governments is to be returned and added to the perpetual care payments.
At this point the Six Nations Elected Council determined that the Court challenge for Canada to account for lost revenues and lost lands needed to be re-activated. Canada was adamant that there could not be negotiations and litigation going on at the same time. This is not true as the Cree of Northern Quebec did the very same thing. In fact they were successful in having the Supreme Court award them $4.3 billion. Both Canada and the province of Quebec were instructed to pay this money to settle the Cree of Northern Quebec land rights. Six Nations is in the very same position regarding our land rights in the Haldimand Proclamation grant of 1784.
To accept money for a small parcel of land within the Haldimand Tract is not looking out for the 7th generation of our people. If money is accepted for a land claim settlement, Canada will expect that we would sign a certainty document that gives up all rights to ever come back to re-negotiate or correct any oversight of a settlement agreement by Canada. The Auditor-General of Canada stated in an appearance before the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, as follows;
“Certainly when we look at land and treaty negotiations, people seem to believe that success is when the land claim is signed. In reality, things are only beginning then. We found in many cases no implementation plans, no consideration of what costs are or who will do all this. There needs to be much more on the implementation and, as you say, the analysis of what the costs are of these commitments that are being made.” [The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples – November 18, 2009]
Any nation in the world derives its wealth from its land. Therefore to sign away our land for some money that would probably be spent within a short period of time is stealing from our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and is the same as selling our greatest asset.
The provincial government is not off the hook in any settlement with Six Nations either. They realize considerable revenue from use of the Haldimand Tract lands through land transfer permits, gas taxes, provincial sale taxes etc. Their greatest take from the Haldimand Tract lands is the Brantford casino and the Racino in Elora. These collections are all without Ontario’s consideration of Six Nations getting a share of the proceeds from the use of our lands and honouring the treaty obligations for the ongoing care and maintenance envisioned by Joseph Brant when the Haldimand Proclamation lands were secured for us within our Beaver Hunting Grounds fulfilling promises for our fighting as Allies of Great Britain during the American Revolution of 1775.
Hopefully the negotiations can continue provided that Canada and Ontario give their representatives a real mandate to negotiate a land right and treaty agreement that encompasses perpetual care and maintenance as the first consideration and secondly return of any lands that become surplus and thirdly the return to Six Nations revenue account funds that were misappropriated by Crown Officials. On the Court Challenge, the Examination for Discovery will begin in February and is expected to take most of 2010 to complete.
William K. Montour
Six Nations Elected Chief
Story 5
Courts won’t take back Shell leases
Carol Christian
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has lost its bid to have the courts quash four oilsands leases granted by the province to Shell Canada that lie within 20 kilometres of the reserve.
The band had taken the action to protect traditional lands, including burial grounds, from oilsands development. Last December the Athabasca Chipewyan also applied to challenge Alberta’s refusal to consult with the ACFN or any First Nation when lands in their territories are sold to industry for oilsands development.
That action was also part of a case that was dismissed by the courts last Tuesday.
“The judge effectively found that not all of the action, but most of the action, was basically brought out of time so that the limitation period applied,” ACFN counsel Robert Janes said this morning. “Essentially he took the view that the limitation period started to run one day after the decision was made.”
However, he noted that the main issue — whether or not the government should have been consulting with First Nations when granting these tenures — has simply been put off for another fight.
In late 2006 and early 2007, the provincial government sold the four oilsands exploration leases to Shell. The leases fall on land Athabasca Chipewyan band members have used for generations not only for sustinence and as a source for medicinal and sacred herbs, but also for ceremonial purposes as it contains burial sites. The land includes the Richardson backcountry, which Janes says is sacred to the band members.
At the heart of the issue is whether a six-month appeal period was applicable or not to the lease sales. The government says yes, while First Nations say no.
At the hearings in Edmonton held early September, a government witness agreed the First Nation was not notified of the lease sales to Shell.
Advertisement
What the rules of court say, according to Janes, is that if a decision is going to be challenged, it has to be done within six months of the decision being made. The courts have also said that if the government is supposed to tell an affected person about the decision, the clock doesn’t start actually running until that person is told.
“We were never told,” Janes said during the hearings. The hearings’ first two days ended up being about whether the ACFN was too late in bringing its action.
The province maintained — and continues to maintain — the six-month review was completed.
“There are still a number of other contentious issues to be decided in this case. This is one part of the discussions,” Jerry Bellikka, Alberta Energy spokesman, said this morning, adding any appeal would be part of the judicial process.
“The case certainly is not over.”
Janes said the judge tied his decision to the Aboriginal Community Link, a Internet system aboriginal communities can sign up for. Though not a member when the leases were granted, ACFN has since signed up.
Even though ACFN wasn’t part of the program, he added the judge said that nevertheless was when the six months started to run.
“The First Nation in fact didn’t even know about it within that six-month period, so of course they couldn’t bring the claim.”
Not blaming the previous chief and council for the delay in signing up to the community link, Janes acknowledged what is now causing grief — and won’t improve relations between the government and First Nations — is the government told the First Nations that there were no consequences to signing up with or opting out of the community link.
“Needless to say it’s a bit if a surprise to the First Nations now to hear that the government takes the view that if you didn’t sign up for it, too bad,” Janes said. “So that’s obviously something that is causing some concern amongst First Nations.”
He said they are looking at their options. One is to go ahead with the part of the claim that wasn’t dismissed. The second option is to appeal.
“That’s something the band is considering,” Janes said, adding costs and the strengths and weaknesses of an appeal will factor into that decision.
A third option would be to wait until another lease is issued and challenge it within the six-month timeframe. That way, Janes pointed out, the government won’t be able to use the technical six-month limitation period as an argument.
Story 6
2nd Anniversary Of The United Nations Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples: Canada Is Still Not On Board!
QUEBEC CITY - Two years ago, on September 13, 2007, one of the most innovative and encouraging instruments in international law and human rights, was signed: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the aim of which is to protect some 370 million people around the world. Canada is one of the three countries which continues to reject this document. Quebec, despite several invitations, also remains silent on the question. "How can you explain the fact that governments who call themselves champions of human rights, like the governments of Quebec and Canada, continue to refuse to support a document which recognizes the fundamental human rights of aboriginal peoples?" asks Ghislain Picard, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL) who participated today in the Moulin à paroles.
"Canada's refusal to sign the declaration is inconceivable", declared Chief Picard while pointing out that the document is a reference guide which is particularly useful in the interpretation of the rights of aboriginal peoples and the obligations of States towards them. This kind of instrument is also extremely important in the State's fulfilling of its commitments vested in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The position of the Canadian and Quebec governments is that much more surprising since the United States and New Zealand (the two other countries who have not signed) have recently shown signs of revising their position regarding the adoption of the Declaration. "What is Canada waiting for?" asks Chief Picard, "and what about Quebec, who for the last two years has hidden behind an almost indecent silence?"
Strong Support
Faced with the immobility of the provincial and federal governments, several Quebec organisations decided to form the Coalition for the Rights of Quebec Native Peoples in the aim of having the Declaration recognized. The Coalition has already received the support of several personalities and organisations within Quebec's civil society. The AFNQL salutes this demonstration of their support and reaffirms its endorsement of this initiative, one of the main objectives of which is to collect signatures on a petition demanding Canada's adoption of the Declaration. This petition is available on line, on the home page of the AFNQL's website. The Coalition's communiqué is available on the French section of the Amnesty International's website (http://www.amnistie.ca).
About the AFNQL:
The AFNQL is a regional organisation which regroups the Chiefs of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador.
For further information: Alain Garon, Communications officer, AFNQL, (418) 842-5020, Cell.: (418) 956-5720
