Quick-Fix Solutions/Wrist-Slaps

"It is difficult to reconcile Canada's well-developed legal framework and general prosperity with the human rights problems faced by indigenous peoples in Canada that have reached crisis proportions in many respects."
"Moreover, the relationship between the federal government and indigenous peoples is strained, perhaps even more so than when the previous special rapporteur visited Canada in 2003, despite certain positive developments that have occurred since then and the shared goal of improving conditions for indigenous peoples."
"There's a lot of misunderstanding on that [the UN's 2007 International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]. Everybody has a right to consent, but there's no instrument that says you have a right to block something unilaterally."
James Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Mr. Anaya should know, he helped draft the declaration adopted by most UN member-nations. Canada signed on conditionally in 2010 to the spirit of the resolution which states the conviction that governments should obtain the "free, prior and informed consent" of its aboriginals before embarking on major projects which would serve to impact the land that aboriginals live upon, or have possession of, or have treaty interests in.

In theory, it was not a difficult choice to make; however, in introspective reality, Canada balked at signing the resolution initially, knowing full well that what appears on the surface to be a simple declaration of right and justice has an underlying foundation of complex realities capable of complicating and confusing the simple issue. The solution is not necessarily to submit to the directive in all instances.

On a week's visit to Canada's north last year, the UN special rapporteur interviewed some of the principals involved in his search for information, consisting primarily of First Nations leaders whose vested interest in having their share of natural resources realized, and their concerns over harms done to the environment they depend upon, protected; a position that anyone can recognize.

While not aspiring to provide specific recommendations (which was wise), he felt that the Government of Canada must ensure that First Nations' rights -- in areas such as salmon harvesting -- are not negatively affected by initiatives undertaken on a large scale by the federal government. Speaking of Enbridge's Northern Gateway project, supported by some, but not a majority of First Nations in British Columbia due to environmental concerns he demurred.

"In that particular case the government probably shouldn't go forward." His report, he stressed, was not to be viewed as a general insistence for a blanket First Nations veto on all prospective major resource projects undertaken by the government. NGOs and advocacy groups, he declared, took too free an interpretation of the declaration's assertion of governments obtaining support of aboriginals for projects potentially impacting upon them.

The outgoing Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples gave recognition to Canada's robust legal foundation dating centuries back that does indeed respect the rights of Aboriginal Peoples. He cited the Supreme Court of Canada's requirement that all levels of government consult with and take steps when possible to accommodate First Nations interests.

While at the same time chiding the federal and provincial governments for their limited record in resolving land claims, reducing poverty, improving education outcomes and tackling the controversial issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, over the part thirty years, he spoke of the issue from a one-sided perspective. The federal government does pay heed to this disturbing reality, one which has its base in the very violently abusive climate prevalent on reserves.

If an ongoing and generalized climate of belligerent demands and rejections were not a reality in relations between the government and First Nations peoples whose interests they genuinely hope to advance was not a distinct reality, life would be far less complicated and much more satisfactory for everyone concerned. But that climate of challenging and dismissing all initiatives that hope to benefit First Nations is a reality, and life is complicated by that fact.

The education bill, for which which Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised $1.9 billion in federal funds, was never beloved by the chiefs in the first place and is now on hold. (Larry MacDougal/Canadian Press) 

Without doubt the UN's report on Mr. Anaya's conclusions gave great comfort for First Nations leaders who have just recently turned their bitter reflex-vitriol once again on both the federal government and their own national leader relating to the new First Nations Education Act, amended to include changes insisted upon by the Assembly of First Nations and then accepted by then-Chief Shawn Atleo, who was forced to step aside by the fury of his detractors.

"The Harper government continues to aggressively pursue a unilateralism legislative agenda that allows unsustainable resource development without meeting the government's legal and constitutional duty of consultation and accommodation on projects that impact our inherent title, rights and treaty rights", claimed Grand Chief Stewart Philip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian chiefs.

The adversarial position so beloved of First Nations leaders holds back any measure of advancement for First Nations within Canada.