Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Federal Liberal government claim that “no relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.” But, they are failing to deliver on their rhetoric.
British Columbia does not have to follow. We must show leadership and introduce legislation on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).
The images of Indigenous leaders pushed into the snow by RCMP members dressed in military fatigues foreshadow many conflicts to come if we keep the status quo. Frankly, those who are advising government to take the business-as-usual approach need to be replaced. They are leading us toward further bitterness, division, anger, and protests. Their advice is irresponsible and dangerous.
Time to deliver on UNDRIP
Over the last few decades, Canadian Courts have been clear in instructing governments to fundamentally change their approach. Politicians have stubbornly failed to deliver.
Instead, governments have ignored the courts decisions, continued arresting Indigenous people, and drawing out the conflicts in lengthy court battles.
Public sentiment has now changed. Citizens demand a more responsible government. There is growing acknowledgement and support for Indigenous rights. And, protests erupt across the country when they are broken.
Canadians are expressing embarrassment and shame by governments and politicians who stand back and watch history repeat itself. They are frustrated when the court system is abused with case after case re-affirming Indigenous rights, and with politicians providing nothing more than lip service to the changes that are needed.
Implementing the UNDRIP is how we can start on the changes that need to occur.
There has been a lot of unfounded fear-mongering about the UNDRIP. The movement began decades ago, sparked by a desire to change the relationship between governments and Indigenous people around the world. It is the result of decades of deliberative democracy. Frankly, the UNDRIP is change for the better.
Let me be clear, the UNDRIP provides us a framework to move forward together. It does not elevate Indigenous rights above other people, it recognizes that Indigenous people have inherent rights. And, it is clear that no rights are absolute.
Free, prior and informed consent is not a veto
So, what about these clauses that refer to “free, prior and informed consent?” People ask whether this gives Indigenous people a veto.
Consent is not a veto. There is no mention of “veto” in the UNDRIP. Consent is about a mutually beneficial relationship. It’s based on goodwill where decisions are informed and made freely. What is so bad about that? These are basic principles that should guide interactions between all human beings. Why should they be different when dealing with Indigenous groups?
The BC Greens and BC NDP promised in the Confidence and Supply Agreement to implement the UNDRIP and the TRC calls to action. While Prime Minister Trudeau drags his feet, we must follow through on our word and show leadership.
There is an opportunity in British Columbia to do the right thing and lead Canada. It will not be easy, but it must start by legislating the UNDRIP.
Thank you for your continued commitment to implementing UNDRIP.
I would like your take on the 2018 SCoC Mikisew decision, and how it impacts prior law, such as the landmark 1997 SCoC Delgamuukw decision.
Thanks for all you do! I stand with the Wet’suwet’en and the Unist’ot’en and Gidimt’en clans! I have sent them as much as I can afford to aid their fight!
Well, UNDRIP does not outline a right to proceed without consent, and it’s my impression governments will be waiting an eternity if they expect to receive consent from the hereditary Wet’suwet’en leaders for the Coastal Gas pipeline to go through their land. You don’t need to call that a veto if you don’t want to, but this situation is perfectly emblematic of that which even children would predict: there will be times when no amount of reasoned discussion will result in bilateral agreement and project approval.
Agreed Dianne.
Can you have mutually beneficial consent without the legal right of veto? Particularly in today’s political/economic environment.
The process must begins long before a decision is made. We have to recognize that Indigenous decision makers may, and will, say no to things. Just like our government says no to things. That is not a “veto” it is a decision making process that in the end was not accepted.