Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>As I was listening to Chief Little Child, I was thinking of my hero. And
some of you here who Have taken courses with me in the past and some of you who
are my colleagues know precisely who I am speaking about. None other than Nelson
Mandela. And as I listen to Chief LIttlechild what I was recalling was not
only his life and his continued. Struggle to insure that human rights is maintained
globally, but I was also thinking of the speech that he made in defense in the, in
his, in the trail. How for him he was willing to die for the principles that he
believed in. The principles of justice, the principles of non-racial
discrimination. And as I thought and as I listened to Chief Littlechild I thought
of the Afro-centric concept called Ubantu. And the Afro-centric concept
Ubantu. Advocates and urges that our humanity is contingent on the humanity of
others. And that we ourselves only have humanity when we extend that to other
people. And as I listened to the eloquent. Articulation of the links
associated with the U, United Nations declaration the rights of indigenous
peoples and, the way in which his articulation picked up on the links and
the urgings of Dr. Marlene Brant Castellano, I considered, how important
it is for us to recall, the spirit of the proclamation that today, we are bringing
to witness. The proclamation, was a proclamation. That spirits suggested,
that we would indeed walk arm in arm. And what I see here today, is the spirit of
that very notion, that is being revitalized. And to process that
revitilization, I'm very delighted to introduce the next speaker. Chief Edward
John, who is the hereditary chief of the Tatien Nation. he, sorry. My mistake,
I'm, I'm, I'm kind of moving ahead of myself. we'll replay it. what I'd like to
do is introduce Craig Benjamin and he in turn will introduce the panel. Thank you.
My apologies. >>Thank you Peter. my name is Craig Benjamin, I'm a Campaigner for
the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples with Amnesty International Canada. And on
behalf of my, my friends and colleagues on this panel I'd like to acknowledge the
of new credit and especially to express our thanks to Gary and Tina Su who opened
us this, they opened the the meeting this morning. To the territory and of course,
express our thanks to New York University for organizing this, important event and
providing with this opportunity to be part of it. I know I'm very honored to,
be able to join such a distinguished group of presenters today. We've heard
today, very powerful words, very important words. We've heard words that
were, that were very hard to hear. And one can only imagine how hard they must
have been to share. We've also heard inspiring and uplifting words,
encouraging us to, to look to our future. This built as Doctor Castiliano have
said, on a profoundly different relationship. And we've heard chief Willy
Littlechild talk about the UN declaration as setting up a framework for that new
relationship. And a relationship which is very much, as with any relationship,
about both partners. About indigenous and non-indigenous peoples and Dr. Castellano
and Willy Littlechild gave us Both that image of th, the linking of arms in this,
this work. What we want to do with it in this panel is explore that, in some
detail in the substance of what the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous
Peoples has, set out for us. The Declaration is the first inter-national
human rights instrument to be developed with the direct participation of the
rights holders themselves. And its provisions reflect the vision and the
needs of those, those rights holders. The fact that it took more than two decades
to, for the declaration to be adopted is, is an indication of the resistance that
indigenous peoples met in that, that struggle. But it's, it's eventual
adoption is a remarkable triumph all the more so for the fact that today even
those few states that had voted against the declaration have not officially
withdrawn their objections. So it stands as a global consensus instrument. The
declaration provides minimum standards for the protection of the rights of
indigenous peoples and it builds on an established body of human rights, and it
links the declaration to those other standards such as the conventional on the
rights of the child. And this the panel that we have with us for this session are
people who played and instrumental role. In advancing the framework of rights that
would become part of that declaration, who played a direct role in many cases in
the, in that negotiation in Geneva. And who have been real champions of the
declarations of effective implementation in Canada and around the world. The
format that we're going to, to take for the next, the hour and 45 minutes, is
that each panelist is going to make, a, a very brief introductory comment. About
the significance of the declaration from, from their perspective. Then we're going
to an exchange among panels. I'm gonna ask us a series of questions of each one.
we hope that it'll be somewhat informal, and free-flowing. and then we'll turn the
room over to you for your own questions. Let me briefly deduce each of the, the
members of the panel. To my immediate right Ellen Gabriel is the vice president
of which is the Mohawk Language Custodians Association. She is one of the
most prominent defenders of human rights in Canada. and the work that she is doing
both in her own community of and her work the coalition includes many of our
organizations, is at the forefront of the work of implementation of the UN
declaration. Jennifer Preston is with the Canadian Friends service committee, the
Quakers. Jennifer is somebody who plays, who has played multiple roles as somebody
who is both a, highly expert in the work that needs to be done, has been a lead
voice for, moving forward the declaration. But she has also done an
enormous amount of, of that behind the scenes work. without which we all know
you make very little progress. and I think, is somebody who deserves credit as
well for her role in bringing this panel together and her contribution to this
event today. Roméo Saganash is a member of Parliament; he represents the writing
of Abitibi-James Bay-Nunavik-Eeyou is expert on international law and the
rights of indigenous peoples, and somebody who has really played an
inspirational leading role in forging that alliance and relationship between
indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in support of the declaration and Helped
open the door and build up relationships with organizations like myselves, like
Amnesty, like the Quakers. And the panelist at the furthest end of the
table, Paul Joff, is a lawyer specializing in international human law
and how it applies to the rights of indigenous peoples. Paul is respected
internationally for his work in this area, and he's somebody who has given his
time and his expertise with great generosity, and has played an enormous
role in strengthening the capacity of indigenous peoples organizations and
non-indigenous peoples organizations, in this common work.
>> and so with those brief introductions, I'll ask each of the panels to, to, as I
say, make a brief introductory remark. and begin with Ellen.
>> . thank you it's a great honor to be here. I am Turtle Clan from the community
of . Okay name is , and it's a great honor to be amongst such esteemed,
knowledgeable and generous people, on, on specifically in the area of human rights.
And it's most important to me because. One of the things that is really
important, as far as I'm concerned is yes, I'm talking about reconciliation
between indigenous peoples and Canadians. Because of the, the traumatic experience
we've had with colonization but also reconciliation amonst ourselves. As
indigenous peoples, amongst ourselves. What colonization did to our people, was
cultural shame. Shame to speak our language, a shame to practice our
cultures, in fact many of our ceremonies went underground, or practiced at night.
especially it's odd for cultures like mine that do most of their ceremonies
during the day, and I've had many elders who have taught me over the years in the
courses and the crises. Many of them have been men, interestingly enough
>> And one of my elders taught me about the doctrine of discovery. And he taught me
about that we never seeded any of our lands. And in fact, sharing our land is
not the correct word We allowed people to come and sit on our territory, to make
their homes, and we would help. They would help us as well, take care of the
lands and all our relations, and for me the declaration Because of the, the
devastating impact that colonization has had on us as indigenous people, people.
And undermining, and making us in fact, deteriorating our obligations, to the
land. To each other. That this tiny little document that we have here is one
of the framework, one of the tools we can use for reconciliation even amongst
ourselves. Cuz it tells us as people, we have rights. We don't have to be ashamed
anymore to speak our language. We don't have to be ashamed anymore to say I'm a .
And where I come from. An international body. With the cooperation and full
participation of indigenous people created an international, the most
comprehensive international human rights instrument. That did not create new
rights. In fact we enforced the rights that we already had before Europeans came
here. And to me, that is one of the most important things about the declaration
and that is why I continue to do this, because 23 years after the Oka crisis My
community has lost more land. And we have been under attack by coercive efforts by
the government of Canada. and I'm waiting to here the government of Canada actually
say, they are truly and sincerely, without any regrets and without any
thought of the cost. The money that it's going to cost them to have real sincere
reconciliation. Peace, love, strength, respect. That is the basis of . And that
is where reconciliation begins for me. . >> just by way of introduction, one of the
reasons well for both Craig and I all, although I promise him not to speak on
his behalf. although I often do. But organizations like ours were involved in
the declaration during its development, during the decades in Geneva, and one of
the reasons that we were is something that actually Willy touched on in his
presentation today. And he was talking about nonindenenous peoples being at
terracy g/ hearings. And what he said then was, that you bear witness. And 1 of
the reasons that organizations like the Quakers and like Amnesty were in Geneva
during those decades of work, it wasn't because we were part of negotiating,
because we were not. Because the work being done with states was indigenous
peoples doing negotiating with states. But our organizations were there to bear
witness to what was happening and how that process was a unique process. In
many ways, as Craig says, the rights' holders were part of the negotiation.
Also, in the amount of time that it took to create this declaration, it makes it
the most discussed instrument in the history of the United Nations. And so,
organizations such as, often we would get, oh, why are you here, you know,
what's your connection? why would your organizations be interested in this?
Because when the Human Rights have indigenous peoples are somehow presented
as less important than Human Rights for other peoples, we all have a problem.
And, and we should all be concerned about that, and that is also reflective of
what,what the TRC is talking about, about nonindigenous peoples, bearing witness
through that experience. This is something that we all need to be engaged
with, and so that is what has motivated our work. both during the, the years of
development and now in the work on implementation. And one of the, when we
were talking about this, to prepare for this, one of the things that I was
looking at was a quote that's actually from the Honorable Rosalie Abella who's
now on the Supreme Court, but this quote is from her, was not, she did not give
this as part of her work on the Supreme Court. But this is from a, a law article
where she says: Silence in the face of intolerance means intolerance wins,
indifference is injustices incubator, it is not what you stand for, it's what you
stand up for. We need more than the rhetoric of justice, we need justice and
that of course is why non-indigenous organizations
>> And non-indigenous individuals are to be part of, of this ongoing work and have
been part of it and continue to be part of it.
>>
.
Those were a few words of greetings and welcome and thanks as well. I was up in
Kuduwak yesterday my leader Danny P. Leader of the opposition. So it's about
2500 kilometers from here. It was hot and sunny up here and it's cool down here .
How they say in French . pretty I was honored to be invited to this panel
because I get to see people that I haven't seen for a while since the work
that we've done over the years in Geneva. Not that I miss them a lot, but , I'm
busy. I'm busy now as a member of Parliament. And I represent the second
largest in the country. In fact I represent more than half. Of the land
mass in Quebec. So I always like to say that you're looking at half of the
province of Quebec right here, right now. I'm honored to, to see them as well
because those were, those were one of the fringe benefits I guess I would call them
from doing all this work over the last. For oven 20 years, for my part, I started
in 1984, in Geneva on the invitation of Dr. Grand Chief Ted Moses, in 1984. Asked
me to accompany him to Geneva, and I liked the way he put it then, in he said,
Romeo, why don't you come You don't have to do anything. You don't have to say
anything. Just watch and that is what I did. And I learned over the years with
the people that I met in Geneva. And one of the better things that happened in
Geneva as well is that we forged such great friendships with so many people, so
many great people and so many. Great minds, so I'm, I'm honored to be sitting
with, with all of these panelists here today, to see some of my good friends
Willie and Annette today. I was born in the bush, and lived off the land with my
parents and siblings for the first Six or seven years of my, my life we're not too
sure exactly. I'm registered 62 with affairs 61 . I don't know why. but for,
for six and seven years my life I spent living off the land hunting fishing
trapping with my father, my mom, and my siblings. And Dr. Castellano spoke about
the fact that reconciliation runs through the land. I can relate to that statement
because if I hadn't had that opportunity to live the first six or seven years of
my life Off the land, with my parents living the traditional way of life. I
don't think I would have survived what happened to me, afterwards you probably
know now that I was taken away as well. I'm a survivor of the residential school
system, and I spent ten years in residential school. Like most of my, my,
sisters and mothers. So, I think, the land, and the culture that came with it,
the language that came with it, the way of life that came with it, is what saved
my life today. So, from the, from the tent In a very cold October morning in
1961 or 62, to becoming a member of Parliament. I can, I can attest to the
fact that there was a constant threat of injustice, there was a constant threat of
violations Have my rights and the fundamental rights of my people, through
out those years, even to this day. And However, grave those injustices, however
violent Those violations have been, to my people, to me as an ingivid-, individual,
but to my people collectively. I always attempted over the years to try to bring
people back together, cuz that's where we a-, we all belong, and, and Willie In
his, speech, spoke about the, the U.N. declaration being, calling upon us to
work together. It so happens that working together is, the The political slogan of
the NDP. That's the extent of my political today. I won't go any further.
But throughout my life and throughout the 30 years being in this business, my
objective, my goal as a person. On behalf of my peoples bring people together in
negotiating agreements in working for 23 years in the discussions and negotiations
for the U.N. Declaration. even to this day as a, a Member of Parliament maybe
you know maybe you don't know but As members of Parliament we have the right
to submit and table private member bills. And my first private members bill that I
tabled in Parliament, in January of this year, was to make sure that all
legislation that went through Parliament, the Parliament of Canada Is in accordance
or in compliance with the UN declaration and the rights of indigenous peoples
because I truly believe that it is the path to reconciliation for this country,
and I almost envy people like Willy Longchild and the rest of the
commissioners. because, they sit on a, on a commission. That is in my mind, while
being an institution, it should be an institution, it should be the
institution, of that very new beginning that Steven Harper talked about in, in
2008, five year, five years ago. Because that's where we need to go as peoples in
this country. I, I'll come back with some concrete examples about how to achieve
that and at least in my view. there are some examples that I can, I can talk
about, that I can think about throughout the 30 years of working with the Grand
Council of the Cree in particular but with aboriginal peoples in general. I'd
like to begin my looking at Article 43. the moderator Craig Benjamin mentioned
that these are minimum standards. But it's important to note. It's on page 38.
It's important to note. That it's the minimum standards for the survival,
digity, and well being of indigenous peoples and you've heard witness today
form surviviors. You've herad form Romeo and Willy and you'll hear from and others
it's not just about survival It's about well being because everyone in Canada as
peoples or as individuals, should have well being. So, when you're interpretting
any provision of the declaration, you should look at it in terms of. Is this
interpretation, let's say if a governemnt gives an interpretation, is it achieving
well being? And if it isn't, then it's outside of what the declaration was
intended for. Now, just as a point, you never look at any single provision in the
declaration in isolation. You can't interpret it in isolation. You should
read it in the context of the whole declaration and also international law as
a whole. And then you can also bring in domestic law or domestic arguments.
Because all of it should fit together. >> The international human rights standard
here served to reinforce domestic law in Canada. And, the last thing I'll say is
just as a side point, they always kid me about this, but you should really number
your preambular paragraph. >> There are 24 of them, and if you don't
number them, it's hard to have a conversation. For instance, preambular
paragraph 7 is what I wanna refer to, and that's on page 12. And once you have the
pp1-24 you'll get there very quickly, and you'll get to know it. I just want to
read the beginning, it says recognizing the urgent need to respect, and protect
the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. The rights are inherent, human
rights are inherent. what we're trying to do with the deceleration. Is first of all
governments and others have to recognize that there is an urgency. It doesn't make
sense that in 2013, the human rights of indigenous peoples are not recognized and
protected. So with that type of context we'll discuss the UN declaration. Thanks.
>> for a moment Paul. let me ask you. You, you said that we have to understand how,
not only does each article in the declaration fit with the other articles,
but the declaration fits together with the larger body of international law, and
it fits together with domestic law in Canada. The federal government
inevitably, in talking about the declration, claims the declaration has no
legal effect in Canada. That it is solely and strictly aspirational. Quite clearly
you're saying something else. What's the argument? What's the rationale for saying
that this instrument is, actually has legal effect in Canada.
>> Well, the declaration was adopted as this booklet shows, as an To a General
Assembly resolution and usually General Assembly resolutions are not binding but,
the declaration may not be binding in the same way as treaties, but it does have
diverse legal affects, and for example in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada
recognizes back 1987 and since then repeatedly that declarations and other
international human rights instruments may be used, well, actually said it more
strongly, they are relevant, I'm quoting now, and persausive sources. For
interpreting domestic human rights in Canada. That's how strong it is. And the,
there was a child and family welfare case that later perhaps it'll come up some
more. But the Federal Court of Canada. It confirmed explicitly in its ruling that
you can use the UN Declaration. And in that case they also referred to
international treaties like the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
You can use them to interpret domestic law in Canada. And then we were in, in
Geneva in February 2012. And Canada was addressing the UN Committee on the
elimination of racial discrimination. And Canada stated to them, they basically
conceded cuz we had put a lot of pressure on them, that not only can you use the UN
declaration to interpret domestic law in Canada. But you can also do it for the
constitution. And so that is huge in terms of potential legal effects, because
you have section 35 for example, which deals with the protection of Aboriginal
and treaty rights. Thanks. >> Thank you Paul. And maybe just to, to
follow up on that a bit with Romeo because you referred to your private
members bill already to, you know, give the declaration affect in parliament. How
do we overcome this situation where we have on the one hand. A court's accepting
the relevance of international standards such as the, the Declaration, but a
government bringing forward legislation with profound impacts on the rights of
indigenous peoples and asserting that the Declaration is in fact other standards
of, of human rights protection for indigenous peoples are, are irrelevant.
Well I, I think it's worth mentioning first of all on with respect to, Canada's
attitude in regards to Aboriginal rights and treaty rights in this country has
been lamentable for many,many years, and it continues to be, that way. let's not
forget that Canada spends over 300 billion dollars fighting Aboriginal
treaty rights in this country, even though most of these rights have already
been affirmed by the courts themselves. So, we're, we're being put, as Aboriginal
peoples, in constant Adversary roles with the government of Canada, whenever,
whenever it comes to Aboriginal rights and treaty rights in this country. But I
always say, it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way.
first, first and foremost there needs to be a change of attitude. by the
governments vis-a-vis aboriginal treaty rights in this country and, and our
human, international, human rights. the other, the other aspect to, to all of
this is of course, that there are other measures that I would like to take before
Before I'm done with the Parliament of Canada and one of them is perhaps another
private member's bill to, to amend Section 4.1 Paragraph 1 of the Department
of Justice Act to vet, in order to vet legislative proposals. Against Section 35
of the Constitution. but to make sure that any legislation that's being
contemplated and proposed by, by government is in compliance with Section
35 of the, of the, of the Constitution. That is the. we, I notice since I got to
parliament 2 years ago, most of the legislation that has been proposed by the
Government, by the Harper Government, did not go through that process. most of the
legislation being proposed by. And the Harper government has been opposed by
First Nations in this country, because there is not sufficient consultation
accommodation. because because those, those are corresponding duties. You have
a duty to consult and accommodate according to the concerns that were
expressed in that consultation. If there's no meaningful consultation If
there is not intent to accommodate, accommodate the concerns of our express
consultations then that, that duty is meaningless. So, the, we need to have
measures in this country that will, that will take that direction and, and the
other aspect that I just want to mention quickly with. And disregard this, the
whole notion of relationships. That should always be the number one item on
the agenda between people as their relations to relationships. that is not
happening. There are very simple, straightforward principles under the,
under the UN doctration and another agreements that. at least the Cree have
signed cooperation, partnership, mutual respect. I was before a parliamentary
committee in Quebec City in 1992 when I was deputy grand chief of the grand
council of Cree and we were fighting yet another hydroelectric developing in our
territory And I told the minister in parliamentary committee you know what? If
your government had come to the Cree and said here's a project. We want to develop
this project. What do you think? Is there a possibility of an agreement? The story
of the Great Wall project would have been very different. That had been the case,
but it was not. It was the same old attitude of disregard for the fundamental
rights of the aboriginal peoples and, and and I think when the free pardon informed
consent that Willy talked about is he correct characterized us and the right to
say yes. Well, most of time with all the projects in this country that, that have
an impact on Aboriginal rights, we don't even get the opportunity to say yes or
no. It's just rammed through with development. And that's, that's been a
problem. There's also that relationship that is been broken in this country.
>> To follow up with you on, on that one of the other things that Dr. , or said that,
that stuck in my mind was, that we talk about truth and reconciliation, but
there's, there's steps in between. and in between the, the two there has to be
healing and there has to be, to be justice. Do you think these, these core
principles in, in the Declaration of >> The, the principles on the relationships,
on the collaboration of consultation of obtaining concent, are these part of, of
taking those steps, of healing injustice? yeah, Romeo .
>> Me again? definitely, definitely because You would have a very different
relationship with aboriginal peoples in this country if that mutual respect was
there. partnership for me, what it means is that governments that know most of the
time that projects have impacts on aboriginal rights or treaty rights in
this country just decided to go ahead unilaterally without even consulting most
of the time. So that's not partnership. And when the Cree were on the forrestry
case, we had this huge forrestry case, and James spake as the 27th Forgery
companies that had license in Northern Quebec. and then December 20 at December
2000, December 20, 2000, yeah. the Sparrow Court in Quebec came down with
this, with the decision that the provision the provisions of the Quebec
Forestry Act were incompatible with the. the terms of the James Bay northern
Quebec agreement. That meant the, an entire forestry industry, was at stake.
That meant 18 thousand jobs in northern Quebec were at stake, with that decision.
And it took that, for the government of Quebec to realize, oh, oops, I have to
talk to these people. And, and when Premier Landry, who was premier of Quebec
at that time, came to us, said, okay, let's sit down and, and settle this
forestry case. We said no. We said, no, we will take this opportunity to settle
our relations. And that new relationship agreement that we signed in 2002 with
Quebec brought about the mutual respect and cooperation since then, 2002, and
it's been going well since then. There's, there, you will not find under James Bay
and Northern Quebec agreement, any provision that deals with consent of
creed /g, for development. But there is no project. That will go ahead and create
territory and the government and developer, developers know, that there is
no project possible without the participation, partnership and consent of
the Cree. That's, that's how it should be, that's real partnership. Just a, a,
as a, as a, quick information, between 1975 when the Crees signed the James Bay
and north Quebec agreement To 2002 when they resigned the new relationship
agreement, the grand chief and premier of Quebec, between '75 and 2002, met about
seven, eight times during that period of time. Since 2002 to this day, they meet
about three or four times a year. Now that's what the relationship should be
all about. At, at the same time, as positive and encouraging as that is, what
we hear quite often is government's asserting that they need to act against
the rights of indigenous peoples. As you said, to, to, spend all that money, all
those resources to fight against the rights of indigenous peoples, supposedly
in the interest of non-indigenous peoples. And, and , and I think that we
were talking Jennifer earlier about, about bearing witness. Part of that to, I
think has to be the, the role that non-indigenous organizations, community
groups, individuals have to play in standing up just to say that the, the
interest of, of non-indigenous peoples can't be equated with an attack on the
rights of indigenous peoples. Absolutely. I mean, I think that when, when, and it
is about relationships, and, and that is also what reconciliation about. And one
of the things that happened is when we had the apology in the House of Commons,
and, and so, the apology was the act of saying sorry. But an apology is more than
saying sorry. And an apology is about a commitment to change. And what, and, and,
and reconciliation means that we have to see a commitment to change. It doesn't
mean that we forgive and forget. And so, as it has already been said today, we
have to re-conceptualize our relationships, and as Romeo said You
know, the, the, for, for the a previous relationship not working. But in many
parts of the country, that's still the status quo. That, that's not a useful
relationship, and it isn't just about the government, it's also, there is a role
for non indigenous. whether it's NGOs, whether it's faith-based groups, whether
it's community groups or whether it's within academic institutions, there's a
rule to say. You know, that's not acceptable. You know, and as our
moderator this morning, he finished the morning remarks saying that he was proud
to be a Canadian. But he, but he wasn't proud of this peace. And you know, we
have, we have to have a situation in Canada where that, that we have, we have
reframed our relationship. And I think that's what the Declaration why the
Declaration is such a good tool is because the Declaration is about a
blueprint for change. And we know. And, and we all heard this morning from the
survivors. We know that the existing the existing situation in this country is not
workable. And it, you know, all of you that were here this morning, you know
that the conditions that led to, to those stories is not a part of a county that
you want to be a citizen of. So then it's not enough to just say well, well, well,
well I wish I had wrote that, no we have to say okay, so what do we need to
change? How do we need to move forward in a different direction? And this is one of
the reasons where we feel the declaration is such an important tool, because the
deceleration is giving us the, the steps towards that, and working on implementing
the deceleration is giving steps to move that relationship. And to reconceptualize
that relationship. And, and I think, you know we had a meeting recently with a
government body who at the end of it they said, well yes, but you know what I think
it's too difficult. and, that's the wrong answer. It is difficult. I mean, we're
not saying that implementation of the declaration is just something that we can
sit down and half a panel about and then boom, tomorrow we're all on our way. It
will be, but, that, but too bad. you know, the Provence of Ontario employs
1,000 lawyers. Well there are enough smart people that could sit down and work
on it, it might be difficult, but how do we do it. And so, you know, and as Romeo
was saying, the amount of funds the governemnt puts towards fighting
Aboriginal rights One of our colleagues did a very innocuous search to discover
that the Department of Justice has on its pay role, the federal Department of
Justice, has on its pay role, 700 lawyers who are working to oppose indigenous
rights in this country. How is that acceptable? How can any of us think that
that's an acceptable way for our tax dollars to be spent? It isn't acceptable.
So, that engagement in changing the actual framework of, of how we approach
all of these issues, is everyone's responsibility.
>> Earlier this morning, and we, we've been given as part of the frame for our
discussion, in fact this is the, the 250th anniversary of the royal
proclamation. And one of the things that was talked about this morning and Dr.
Malloy talked about this, is we have a, a history of, of treaty relationships,
relations between, between nations that set up a relationship that in name is a,
is that kind of relationship of, of, of partnership, of, of, of, of
collaboration. But what we've also heard is, we have had an immediate history of
violation of those, those, those very treaties, of those, those promised
relationships and the issue seems to come down, largely,one of power. The, the
government could get away with violating those relationships. Ellen, I mean, you,
you, you began by talking about the, the, the profound trauma, the harm Done and
continue to be done by, by, by colonial mentalities, colonial programs, policies.
It does it on a pragmatic practical level. Thus, the declaration alter that
power relationship anyway. >> I think in theory, it does. In reality
it's not, because it's not. Being implemented, and one of the things that I
think is, is really important to note is what Paul said, is that you don't take
the declaration in isolation. So if I look at some of the, the articles that
talk about forced assimilation and destruction of culture And the right for
you know, just from like the rights of a child, the right of the child to be, to
have an education in, in their own language. one thing that we see very much
in our communities is decrease in funding to education. And almost no funding, at
least, recurring funding for language and culture. It's not enough to say that
you're sorry. When it comes to saying, well, we did this, this, and this to your
people and these were the effects on your people. And do nothing. And in the
meantime, we're struggling. It's almost as if they're sabotaging their own
apology Because as time progresses we are losing those speakers. We are losing
those people with the traditional knowledge. And it's not enough to record
them. Because what you have to do is like, like any apprenticeship or
mentorship, you have to be guided. You have to be taught. You have to. When you
speak a language especially an indigenous language, it's a way of thinking it's a
way it's your cosmos vision it's your perspective on the world. And, and what
we see today is everything going against it. And it always brings me back to, to
Jean Chretien And Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the late prime minister of Canada, and
the, the 1969 white paper policy when they said when you no longer speak your
language, or practice your culture, you will have become assimiliated. And, and
yes you know, I'm the, I'm, I won't talk about me because I'm not a good example
of this, but Romeo is. >>So you, you look indigenous, right? I come from a long
line of turtle clan people, so regardless of what anyone says, I have a clan. But,
you look indigenous, and I see this from people who are adopted and they say,
look, I look in the mirror and I see an indigenous person. I see a native person.
But when I go with other indigenous people, I don't, I can't relate to them.
I don't feel it. I don't know what it's like. And, and so the declaration for me,
it takes all those things that were attacked by colonization, language,
culture, identity, the family unit. Our relationship to the land. Our culture.
Our, our ceremonies. Our spirituality. our, our health. Our physical health
which rely on the land. We rely on the medicines for, for it. It takes all that
and encompasses it. And then when we look at, say, the or the, and, and our
customary laws and we use them together we Say, you know, it's almost like,
finally the White people got it. They understood that you cannot base your
identity, basically, based on a picture in a passport. It's about a way of life.
It's about a way of thinking and it's about upholding your obligations. You
know, our ancestors had a tougher life than we did. They went through and I'll,
I know in my community the smallpox epidemic was something that was inflicted
intentionally. We had 150 children who went to Shingwauk Indian Residential
School, Industrial school. It was an industrial school. Six who never came
back. One who was 12 years old who died at childbirth. She never came back. And
it, it to me it's about. What kind of legacy do you want to leave to present
and future generations? What kind of stories do you want them to tell about
you? About your people in 2013, and your attempts to bring about peace? And, and,
to me that's, that's part of what this declaration stand for, and that's why
it's, it's, you know, I'm, I'm so thankful to be sitting in this panel with
these three people and, and yourself, because you get it. You understand that
justice doesn't just mean affair in equitable settlement. Just as the
recognition as Willie said of the truth. Just as the recognition that as
Indigeneous people, we are nothing without our land. We are nothing without
our languages and culture. We are self determining people. We are not
minorities. We don't have the same history as, as people who come from other
continents. We are the original people of this land, our oral stories say we come
from this land, we do not come from China, we do not come from Russia,
perhaps some people you know they cross the Bering Strait, but the traffic didn't
say one way only. Our people >> Tell us our DNA is from the Americas,
Turtle Island. And those are the kinds of stories that I think the declaration will
allow us to do when we take over control of our education. Paul
>> Is to follow up on what Alan said. Alan mentioned that the declaration isn't
being implemented. And I think you meant by the, federal and provincial and
possibly territorial governments. The compelling reason why this declaration
has to be implemented, is that it's based on the, precisly the same principles, and
values, that Canada has right now, and that are also in the international Legal
system. And Chief Wilton Littlechild read out earlier, Article 46 3. And he
mentioned the principles of justice. Democracy, respect for human rights,
equality, non-discrimination, good governance, and good faith. These are
Canadian principles and values already. So, why would any government in Canada,
refuse to apply them, to indigenous peoples. And it is impossible to ever
achieve reconciliation if you do not respect and protect human rights of
indigenous peoples. It is also impossible to claim that there is good governance,
as mentioned in article forty-six three, without respecting and protecting the
rights of indigenous peoples, and the Supreme Court of Canada has an important
principle that the crown has a constitutional duty to uphold. The honor
of the crown well you could never uphold the honor of the crown if you're not
respecting the human rigths of indigenous peopels.>> Eh, I noticed that you
carefully distinguished between that Federal, provincial, territorial
governments may not be implementing, and I think the other part of that, of
course, is that there is implementation going, going ahead at other levels,
other, other ways of implementing. And in fact, I think, Ellen, you have a, a, a
extradorinary example of implementation in the, in the work that that does, is
doing. through the help of Jennifer's organization and , we undertook the
enormous task of translating the UN declaration into , which is what you know
as Mohawk language. And it was three months. Of negotiating back and forth
with the translator and my boss who also translated and edited. And the things
within, there's concepts within the declaration which we, in order for us as
indigeneous people we, it's important for us to put it in our language becuase the
concepts sometimes do not quite jive with our customary. Laws. They're similar, but
because like for us, for , 80% of our language is verbs. We have to describe
something. So we describe something that's a concept that might be like human
rights. How do you say, how do you say human rights? You know? And what does
that mean? Because >> Yes, we have rights but we have
obligations. so, it took three months to, to make this wonderful document. And we
have a limited printing of it. And I, I welcome the first whoever people to.
>> >> Come up here and, and, and get them, get, get themselves a copy. But I'll say that
very slowly because if you, if you read it I don't know if the cameras can get
it. And that actually means United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. So it's it's so, it's something I'm very honored and proud to
have been part of. I typed it that's all I did. I typed it but if you know the
standardization of Mohawk is like many other indigenous languages where, where
oral traditions and you have these glottals and you have these up stresses
and down stresses and lengths and but I come from the oldest. I'm proud to see
that all the community that exists today, , which existed long before Europeans
arrived, our communities mentioned in the [FOREIGN, condolence rite of the chief.
We were the first community to accept and we have the oldest dialect. And we're not
saying we have the right dialect, All the other communities. But we have the oldest
dialect. So I've been very proud to have been part of this. To thank. That's why
it's so important to have the NGOs participate in the implementation of the
declaration because they support these kinds of activities. So thank you.>>And
Ellen already mentioned, that the Quakers were, were an organization that helped
support, this translation but, but Jennifer I was wondering if, if you some
other examples that you could share of, of practical implementation of the
declaration.>> yeah I, I think in terms of implementation
>> the first step of implementation is that people have to know it. And indigenous
leaders didn't travel from around the world to go to the UN for 20 years so the
document can sit in the library in Geneva. and so, one of the first things
that we did all of a Thus we're working in a coalition of both indigenous and
non-indigenous partners and one of the first things that coalition did was to
produce the booklet which you all have here today I know, because my aide made
sure that you all had it here today. And The organization that produce around the
back, you'll see and we, when we first produce it, the original printing we did
100,000 copies, which we distributed it very quickly. And so then we did a second
quickly which of another 20,000 copies. Which is almost completely distributed
and we're doing a third. Printing this year of these booklets. And one of the
things about, I mean, it's a very simple, active implementation, but it makes the
instrument well known. And in fact, I had a call from someone at the Canadian Human
Rights Commission, and she called me up and she said you know, the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the best known A human rights instrument
in Canada. And it's because of those booklets. everyone has those booklets.
And so it, that's, it's a very simple act of implementation. But it's also
something because implementation happens on so many levels. And some of them are
very straightforward like that. And, and others obviously are more complicated.
But in terms of awareness raising, it's one of the things that our organizations
jointly have worked on, is to raise awareness around the declaration, raise
awareness about why it's important and what it means. And then we had some
photocopies here today of some resources And I know that, so many, not everyone
has them. They are also on the website that York set up for this symposium. All
of those documents are on that website, so that you can access them if you didn't
get a paper copy, but there's various resources that we've tried to develop in
terms of, to help raise awareness around the declaration. And I think one of the
things that I'm gonna let Paul and Romeo speak about political and legal
implementation, but a piece of implementation that we all work a lot on
is what I will call social implementation. And social implementaion
is about making sure that it's used. And being used is part of implementation. we
were involved several years ago in a symposium where the United Nations
special repetoire on the rights of indigenous peoples wanted to know when he
visited a member state and he did a study and he came up with recommendations to
that member state, he wanted to know were those recommendations being implemented.
And what came out of that work was that in fact the implementations don't come
from governments, implementations, it comes from the ground. And so in fact,
although there is implementation to be done at all levels, implementation has to
be done on the ground, and it has to be done at all kinds of levels. And I would
say that, you know holding symposiums like this, is a piece of implementation,
because is, that is also about awareness reason. It can be implemented in
education system. One of the things that we've always talked about is that the
deceleration has to be taught. As we were talking this morning, about. That history
of the Indian residential schools, it needs to be in our education system. And
the declaration needs to be in our education system. a good example of that
is, after the declaration was adopted and we produced these booklets, we were
contacted by the province of New Brunswick. the Ministry of Education, and
they ordered enough booklets, so that every student going into High School,
that was taking law, would get a copy of the deceleration. So it can easily be
brought into educational systems. there are child friendly versions, so that it
can also be used. with children at a younger age group in terms of that.
there's we have, all of us participated in various types of workshops around.
Awareness raising around the declaration, how you can use the declaration. Some of
those workshops have been at the community level. Paul and I have been.
twice, and this summer for the third time to Ellen's community. To do that, yeah,
that type of work at the community level. but also we've done those types of
workshops with human rights commissions. Which is also implementation, and you
know particularly here in Ontario, we know that Ontario Human Rights Commission
has put a lot support behind the deceleration. Takes that very seriously,
as well as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. So there's lot of ways that
that type of implementation where it's being used, where it's being upheld, that
can happen and, and we are not dependent on good will of governments to see that
happen. The more that a human rights instrument is referenced and used the
more it is engrained in, in how we carry forward our work, and that makes the
declaration real, and that makes the declaration continue to grow. So I, I'll
leave it to these two to talk about those other elements of implementation.
>> Yep, I'll leave to Paul to, to address the how the courts and other bodies have
embraced the, the UN declaration but let me talk a bit about how, I would like to
see the declaration being implemented in Canada from a local prospective and
through the Parliament of Canada. as I mentioned just a while ago I did submit
the private members bill. The number of the bill is C-469 and the bill will be up
for debate sometime in 2014. you know there's, there are 300 members in
Parliament in Canada and there's a draw At every legislature there's a draw
where, you know, you get to be the first or the second or 308th to submit to have
your bill debated. But I think I was somewhere around 197. So my bill will be
debated in sometime, 2014 because of that. I also wanna, I wanna tell you that
the One of the things that Jack Layton asked us when we, when we first got, when
I got elected in 2011. And met with this caucus for the first time. He asked us
two things, the 101 members of the NDP that were elected, he said, I want us to
be a forceful party of the opposition. But I also wanna be want us to be the
party of proposition. So that, that's the idea behind some of the private member
bills that we have. before Parliament right now. There's also private member
bill that will allow. Online petitions to be, to be tabled in parliament because,
right now under the ru, present rules, online petitions cannot be tabled in
parliament. They have to be signed petitions so, there's a private member's
bill from the NDP member Phil Dunlay I believe from BC that that will be also
debated, and that would allow online petitions. to be accepted in the, the
Parliament of Canada. I believe that the online petition for the U.N. Declaration
and my private member's bill is already on the MDP website so you can go, go and
check and sign on if you, if you approve of this legislative initiative that I,
that I That I started in the House of Commons. Those were the type of things I
wanted to see achieved through my efforts. I know that a lot of times we
seem to think Aboriginal issues in this country are very difficult, are very
complex perhaps. Perhaps but like I said, at the outset, it doesn't have to be that
way. We, they, they are gonna be complex and difficult only, if we choose if we
choose that that they be so. Only because as long if, if, if Aboriginals in this
country become a priority for, for governement, I intend to insist on that
throughout my present mandate. Another one in 2015, I intend to insist that.
>> Aboriginal issues have become a priority for, for the government. Because that's
the missing piece of this wonderful puzzle that, that we call Canada.
>> Well, there's a domestic element and then there's an international element.
Element. Right now, indigenous governments, their institutions,
indigenous peoples in general, can use the UN declaration for all their work.
Whether it's policy making, decision making, law making, their free to use it
to interpret rights and related state obligations. Jennifer mentioned the human
rights bodies. Across Canada, there are federal, provincial, territorial human
rights commissions. They can all use it within their mandate. So if they get a
case relating to indigenous peoples, they can bring in the UN Declaration. Now
Federally Internationally the U.N. offices of high commisiioner for human
rights. The high commisioner's the highest level person dealing with human
rights in the international system. She has said this is a priority in her work,
and it is the frame work >> For which she deals or addresses
indigenous rights. The UN Treaty bodies have the mandate to interpret whatever
treaty they're responsible for. So for example, the Human Rights Committee
interprets International Covenant on civil and political rights Well when
Canada, who has ratified these various treaties, goes before these bodies these
bodies can turn to Canada. And Canada has their report every 4 or 5 years to each
of these bodies. And these bodies can say, what are you doing with these
concerns or violations of indigenous people? And have you used the UN
Declaration? And for instance, the committee on the elimination of racial
discrimination turned to the United States while they were still opposing the
UN Declaration, while they had voted against it, and said you should be using
the UN Declaration in terms of your obligations under this convention. So
there's no way that Canada can escape from it. And the other thing to remember,
is that 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights, the Former Secretary
General said that human rights is the common language of humanity. And what he
meant is, you have thousands of different cultures, not only amongst indigenous
peoples, but also amongst all peoples in the world. And how are you going to deal
with, common issues and problems? How are you going to resolve them? How are you
gonna work together through cooperation and solidarity? Well, human rights is the
common language, so there's just no way that Canada, in this case the Federal
Government, can continue to try and not acknowledge that indigenous people's
collective rights are human rights. It's only a matter of time.
>> Thank you >> I just wanted to add one other thing
about implementation and a concrete action. the declaration was adopted by
the General Assembly in September of 2007, and right away, grand chief Edward
John, who's gonna be our final presenter here this afternoon He had said, let's
have symposium and let's talk about implementation, let's talk about, now we
have it, what, what are we doing with it. And so, with, under his leadership, was
organized, a three-day symposium that took place in British Columbia. And out
of that symposium came this book, and the book is Realizing the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Triumph, hope and action. And the, the
book was, the people who wrote the chapters in the book had all presented at
that symposium. And that symposium itself is an active implementation, there was
300 people that came for three full days to learn about, both how the declaration
had been developed What the contents of the declaration are, what does that mean
and how can we all engage with it. And so the, the, the depth of that is embodied
in this book, which I know, if you are in Professor Dawson's class, one of he's
classes he teaches this book. and also we do have some copies it here. I know that
there were some people that got it at lunch time. But if there's other people
who are interested. I have some copies, at the end you can see me. And, you would
be under the very good fortune of being able to get almost everyone who wrote in
this book is in this room. and you can go on and get free autographs. So I just
wanted to make a plug for that piece, And also just, to turn it back to Craig for a
minute. In terms of implementation and when we look at implementation, and one
of the things because we know when we talk about implementation, when we talk
about reconcilliation, when we know how many things are going on currently and
where indigineous rights are, are being continued to be assaulted in this
country. And of course resource development projects being a big piece of
that. So I'm gonna ask Craig if he would give us just a minute to discuss about
how implementing the declaration. And the declaration feeds into environmental
assessment, impact assessments. And how that's feeding into current political
climates as well. Yeah, this is, this is actually my, my passion at the moment.
Because people know that one of the, the catalyst out at more last year was that
aspect of the federal omnibus legislation. They really gutted
environmental impact assessment in Canada. And greatly reduced the
likelihood that major resource development projects will be subject to
an open public. >> environmental impact assessment with a
independent panel. Nonetheless, the federal government continues to point to
the environmental impact assessment process as the crucial, in fact, pretty
much the only example it can give of a formal mechanism by which it is in any
way Responding to the constitutionally protected and internationally protected
rights of indigenous people. So we ask about how are you concrete in fulfilling
your, your duty to consult and accommodate? They'll say well, we have
the environmental impact assessment process. The process is deeply flawed
from that point of view because. All it can do. For one thing, indigenous peoples
typically do not have any say, any input into how the process is structured and,
and carried out, but also the process only results in a recommendation, which
government can, can choose to act on or ignore. None the less those
recommendations do have considerable, you know public political weight, when the,
when those rare exceptions, when a case does go to a full open independent panel.
We know that they can be a real lightning rod for public attention, so they are
important moments. We've seen this. With a number of hearings. Amnesty
International, will be making a formal presentation to review in about a month's
time, of the New Prosperity, proposed New Prosperity gold and copper mine on
national territory and this in something we'll increasingly look at. Because,
precisely because, international human rights standards brought into the mix can
be so powerful. assessments curating to federal legislation. they're essentially
balanced, you know. Their tempting to, to weigh the balance of the potential
benefits of a project versus the potential harm. The potential harm
include impacts on indigenous peoples' culture, indigenous peoples' use of the
land. If we bring into that mix, international human rights standards. How
you weigh that balance changes considerably because international human
rights standards are so very, very clear about the high standard of precaution
that has to be applied whenever you're considering something that could impact
on that crucial relationship that Roméo began by talking about, of indigenous
peoples to the land. That the importance of protecting that, the dire consequences
of breaking that relationship And the fact that we have, historically, already
pushed Indigenous peoples to the edge by history of unresolved dispossessions and
actions, like the residential school program, that served to erode that
relationship. So we think that bringing international framework in can help
strike a much more appropriate assessment of, of the risk. You see the system is
not what is should be. Because indigenous peoples are not genuinely full
participants. And the decision is still ends up being in the hand of in the hands
of the government that never actually engages with those realities. But at
least the public record, the truth telling can be improved. And that moment
of public pressure can also be also be strengthened. So thank you for asking
that Jennifer. I think what we want to do at this point is open the discussion up
to all of you. If the hand mikes are ready to go I will try to keep a speaking
order. And I see one person already. Here, we'll ask, I've been asked by the
panelist to enforce this rigorously. We'll l ask people to make quite short
comments and to focus on the topic of the implementation of the declaration And its
relationship to the goal of reconciliation and how we have to get
there. So there was a third row, down here on this side. If we just start.
>> so my question goes to Any of the panelists vision on implementation by the
courts in terms of Section 35 jurisprudence? Cuz to date, the courts in
looking at Section 35 and interpreting it have been noticeably silent about saying
anything with respect to. At least anything much in terms of the
relationship between Aboriginal and treaty rights, as that term is understood
in Canada, and human rights. So I just throw that question out to any of you who
want to answer it. >>I see another panelist pointing to Paul at the end.
Paul, would you clarify for me, for people who are not familiar with what
section 35 is? Well section 35-1 says that the aboriginal peoples of Canada,
which include as they put it Indians, Inuit, and Matee peoples. it says that
the aboriginal the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal
peoples of Canada, are recognized and affirmed, so the question is, what does
that include and how do you interpret it? And Wendy is right, that the court has
never taken a Human rights based approach. What they thought Was, well we
have this provision. There's, we have to put some principles in it. So they
basically, and this court is a very respected court, the Supreme Court of
Canada basically made up some principles that they thought fit with Canada and fit
with. The historical context. The problem is, is some of the principles do not
conform to what has been developed in international human rights law. So, what
you have right now is the Supreme Court sometimes going in this direction, and
international human rights law going in that direction. And I think, when Chief
Ed John will speak of a case, that's coming up November 7th, and appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada, and this whole issue that Wendy just raised, will come
up. My, my own belief is that when it says aboriginal, and treaty rights. I
believe that that includes all the rights that are in the declaration. Because when
an aboriginal people, or individual, goes before any human rights body
internationally or regionally, such as the Inter-American system or in the
African system Their rights are always addressed under the human rights system.
And they'll say, oh your in that bridge and all people from Canada. Well they
still apply human rights. There is no difference in the term between aboriginal
peoples and indigenous peoples. There's no difference in terms of international
human rights law between aboriginal rights and indigenous rights. So, that's
my interpret, interpretation. They'll have to go there. And I think that Grand
Chief Ed John will talk a little about that important case coming up.
>> There was a, a question, I think, second row from the front here.
>> first of all, I wanted to appreciate and thank Ellen and Romeo for speaking the
regional languages of this land. It was so fluent, it was musical. Thank you very
much. I really appreciate it. Second of all the comment by Ellen, about the
culture of shame. This is something that in civil war, I mean, civil what was
that? I forgot. civil activities of 1960's in USA. the black people were also
Into that position. What they did is came with a counter offer a black is
beautiful. When they said black is beautiful that was actually counter
offer, or encouragement. The black people started to believe in themselves. They
fought, it was a war against. The culture of shame. You especially, Alvin, because
I saw you talking with so much feeling, have you done anything like that? I mean
I'm sure that Jennifer will be supporting you if you come up with such logos, you
know, with such slogans, which are beautiful and productive. Have you ever
thought of that? Have you ever done anything on that? I, I never thought of
making a bumper sticker with something to do with my identity. Like I mean Black is
Beautiful is, is, it goes you know you have two b's going together. So, we cant
even agree upon if whether we're native. Aboriginal, indigenous, , you know I, I
was raised to be proud of who I am, be and, and I, you know I, I treasure those
teachings. And it's trying to get that to the youth to be proud of who they are,
because what they see is disfunction and arguing, and, and blah blah blah.
>> it's something I think we'd have to maybe consult with our people on, what kind of
bumper sticker we'd like to see. I mean, for, for a lack of anything else, I mean
there's, there's, I don't know more, kind of thing that, that's reuniting both
indigenous people and you know, the average Canadian. you know I, I do
appreciate your, your comment. But you know that they, the depths of harm that
the residential school did to the psyche It, it, it goes very, very deep and, you
know, I, I think for I, a lot of people here who, who, you know, who didn't go to
residential school, but felt the impact of residential school, will agree that,
and, and psychologists will agree. That when you're, when you're on this road to
healing, it's like the onion. The onion, there's one layer that falls off, another
layer that falls off. so, it's not easy to come up with a word that would
describe how beautiful and how rich. >> Indigenous peoples cultures are. It's
beautiful, but it's so much more than beautiful. You know, for, for something
that's really wonderful or beautiful and I'm sure if my, my, my teachers would
probably say, no there's another word for it. But all I could think of is It's
something like that you like something, it's really wonderful, it's beautiful,
it's, you know, there are so many things in there. And I think, when we look at
the, the richness of our culture, we can say it's exciting too. I mean, I was
listening to, to Romeo talking about his, his First formative years on the land.
It's exciting. You know, you go canoeing. You see the water. You see the birds. You
wake up with all the things of creation that the Creator put on there so.
Indigenous means something different to different people but at the end of the
day it means you're a part of Creation. and I don't think that people would put
that on a bumper sticker, but I'm sertaintly hoping that the legacy that we
leave behind will do away with bumper stickers and we'll talk about You know,
my DNA is like your DNA, and it goes even deeper to being a woman. You know, you
have to be slim, beautiful, wear a certain kind of clothes and so the
complexity of global society impacting indigenous identity.
>> is, is so vast, but I like your idea. And I, I will definitely think on it. Thank
you. >> and, I know that, there are, there are a
couple toward the, the back, and I, I see, see one person to the right. Was
there somebody earlier that I am missing now?
>> No. >> my question is kind of about the actual,
the Texas Declaration. And I know that its had a long history in order to get
together, actually, into the UN. >> But I'm just looking through it now and
article 46 seems to stick out as being I guess a product of the struggle, because
it, it says nothing in this declaration may be construed as authorizing or
encouraging action which would dismember or impair the territorial integrity or
political unity of sorrow and Independent states. And I was wondering how that
interferes with, for example articles three, four, and five, about the right to
self-determination and whether governments could possible use that
against indigenous rights. Is that an issue, or have you thought about it?
That's an excellent question I think any of the other panelists could weigh in. I
don't know if Romeo, if you wanted to take that. >>I can start, I'm sure Paul
will be able to complete. This article came about because of the concerns There
were ways, exactly, about the territorial integrity of the memeber states in our
discussions in particular with respect to the right of self determination that we
find under Article three. And Paul can elaborate on this, international law.
Already provides for those concerns and that the article in question, 46, that
you just quoted was meant to reflect the actual state of international law to
respond to the concerns that certain member states had with respect to that
right of self determination of indigenous peoples. And their territorial integrity.
That's one thing. The other aspect that is essential to mention here is the fact
that again we need to read the UN declaration, not in isolation article by
article, but as a whole. all of the other articles and a lot of the articles talk
about collaberation, partnership, cooperation, mutual respect and so on and
so forth and as well as international human right in general so we can not just
take Article Three, for instance. The right to self-determination. And read it
in isolation. because that, that was the concern that many states at the beginning
of the process. That, that's why it took so long in the process to get the right
of self-determination, without qualification. to get it accepted and
that's why it took so long to have toward peoples in, in our discussions. That was
a long for many years we had to discuss, that we insisted that we used the word
peoples, with respect to indigenous peoples, because that was
>> Using, using people otherwise would have been discriminatory towards indigenous
peoples. I'll let Paul complete the answer.
>> Romeo is absolutely right. the, certain states really wanted it and especially
the African states, within the African continent, there are a lot of conflicts,
both within This, existing states and also between states. And I have to say
that Canada, Australia. Especially Canada and New Zealand were urging the African
states to raise problems with the Declaration. And it did cause an
eight-month delay. So, there had to be some compromises to satisfy the African
states. They weren't the only states that have that problem. Latin American states,
but the Latin American states had been pretty much on board, most of them. But
why it can't affect, as Romeo said, anything but reflect existing
international law, which has the principle of territorial integrity. To
balance the right of self determination. Right of self determination is an
absolute, human rights are usually not absolute, except maybe torture or
genocide, but usually it's relative. And the provisions that safeguard it, for
instance article 44 45 sorry, says, nothing in this declaration may be
construed as diminishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may
acquire in the future. So whatever rights they had in international law to this
declaration could not be changed by any article here. Secondly, it's important to
we also put in the preamble 'cause we negotiated these provisions. Again, it's
PP17, it's on >>No it's not up, don't give page numbers 'cause there's two
different booklets. >> Oh, two different booklets, okay.
Basically what it says is that nothing this declaration. May be used to deny any
people, any peoples, their right to self determination, excercised in conformity
with international law. We argue, we're not asking for anything new. These are
the inherent rights that all peoples have, the right to self determination.
And so that was put in, as further assurance. Now, the first preambular
paragraph. See, you can't see it just by reading it. But it says, guided by the
purposes and principles of the Charter at the United Nations. Now, what are the
purposes and principles of the Charter, that are to guide this? Well one of them
is the principal of equal rights and self determination of peoples, that's in the
charter. So that to helps to reinforce the right of self determination that you
mentioned in article three. >> Is wanting to, make sure that was,
>> >> That, what's your question? >> >> Please go ahead.
>> I was wondering, how exactly in practice does the balance work. Like, if you have
a, if a people's have a referendum to seed from a country, can they do that
under International Law? Does this have any, does this Does this declaration have
any effect on it, and because it's the right to self determination, up to that
point, like up to it seems like you have rights until you stand up for them. Like
it says you have rights but then if you choose to go that far as to cede from the
country or to you know political solution. And that article forty-six
kinda says that states have the right to territorial integrity, then they're at
odds. So how does that work in practice? >> We'll do it the same way again. We gotta
understand as well, one, one of the things we need to understand when we
discuss the concept of self-determination is there are multiple facets to the right
of self-determination. Self-determination doesn't necessarily only mean to become a
country. >> Are independent. unilateral succession if
you refer to the case reference case to the Supreme Court 1998. again, unilat,
unilateral succession is of a, is is a measure Of last resort and the right of
self determination also includes concept of cooperation for instance tribulations
my people decided to have as an exercise of right of self determination a tribute
relationship with both Canada, Quebec and agreement that's That's how we exercise
our right to self determination, because we view that politically that was perhaps
the best thing for our people. And so again the right of self determination has
multiple facets. a lot of people understand that self determination means
separation and dismembering of >>Of member states a, around the world but
that, that's not necessarily the case. >>I'll just say that self determination
and the principle of territorial integrity will always be balanced one
against the other, and it depends on the facts and law in each case. And as Romeo
mentioned You have to have a very serious case of human rights violations to take
the measure of unilateral susception. And even then there can be problems if other
countries don't recognize you. So it can be quite complicated and we're not going
to get into it here. But as Romeo mentioned Within the state or indigenous
peoples are not just domestic actors, indigenous peoples are also international
actors. All these standards that are being set, and more and more are being
set internationally there, its indigenous peoples representing themselves from all
over the world. States could never represent indigenous peoples there,
because states violate those rights, and states will not put forward, the full
positions of indigenous peoples. So, that is an act of self determination, that's
ongoing, internationally. It's not just domestic, but domestic is important too.
in resources, the right to resources is in paragraph two of our Article One of
the Covenants, the deals with the right to self-determination. It is also said
that the right of self-determination is a prerequiste for peoples In terms of the
exercise of all other human rights. So when one reads the UN declaration. And
it's accord, and it wasn't created by the declaration. The declaration affirms the
right to self-determination, that's already in the international human rights
covenant. >>For all peoples, but again, you have to read it in the, with the lens
of self-determination, and that brings up a lot of issues where indigenous peoples
have to have control. Thank you. >>I think that you were about to, there was a
question down to the side. Am I right or wrong? Hi. thanks a lot for the whole
day. It's been really informative very interesting. I had two questions which
can be addressed by anyone. Whatever. The first question is. If any of you could
talk a little bit more about your experience over time, organizing at the
international level, transnationally. And, you know, and people learn a lot
from people from everywhere else in the world that maybe have a, a variable
understanding of indigeneity or Of their rights so I'm wondering if anyone has any
reflections on how their own understandings have developed in
conjunction with sort of with other people's understandings. Maybe they
aren't coming from Canada, for example. my other question was more technical and
I don't know if it's very useful. But I'm wondering about. People who have status,
or non-status, in, in Canada, how do people identify that in relation to the
declaration being indigenous? How does, how does that work legally, that people
are using this declaration? It might just be a quesiton of ignorance. I'm not sure.
But if anyone would like to address that. >> Okay, thank you for that. Actually, I
mean it's a good question. Maybe, so the two questions, maybe we go with the
second one is whether the distinction in Canada between status, non-status if that
has any impliocations for understanding this concept in international law of
indigenous people, indigenous persons. It's, it's a good question and it's, it's
eh, sort have been I would say the bane of indigenous women's existence eh,
because of the Indian Act. The Indian Act, they knew that in order to distroy
our nations they would go through our women And so many women have before 1985,
when they married a non-indigenous person, they lost their rights and Indian
status. But we have to remember Indian status is also given to us by the
colonial, the colonizer. It's not, it's not us determining who is a member. Of
our nation. But in the UN declaration Article Six, every indigenous individual
has the right to a nationality. Included with, within the right to
self-determination also the, that nation has to, has the right to choose who are
its citizens. It gets very complex and, and very mired in Sometimes, a very much,
a colonial way of approaching something that should be a given. In our customary
ways, when you are a citizen of our Nations. And I'll talk about the . It's
not just, here's my red card. It's, what am I doing, giving back to the Nation.
What am I doing giving back in my obligations to take of the earth. To take
care of all the creations. What's my part in building our nations and transmitting
that knowledge? As opposed to the colonial way, which is here's a card.
we're going to, we're going to allow you to have part of your trust fund for your
education. I'm not gonna say free education because that is part of the
government propaganda that villifies Indigenous people to the Canadian public.
It's not free education, it's our trust fund money. And with in December 2010,
there was Bill C3 or S3, which allowed the grandchildren of the women who lost
status, because they're like pure-breds. They were like whether you're a
racehorse, or a dog where you have this bloodline. And there's 4 different kinds
of ways to obtain status and one is blood >> And it really, they are, they, they're
all blood quantum. but bills S3 allowed the indigenous women who married
non-indigenous men, their grandchildren to move up a notch, and their children to
move up a notch in regards to having full status. But what's this all about
anyways? It's about who is entitles to live on lands reserved for Indians. And
it goes even deeper. It goes into the land grab. If you have less status
Indians and they're all moving to the urban areas. Because life is so frickin'
miserable in the communities because of the dysfunction that was created by band
councils, imposed by the Canadian government. Then you're not gonna need
reserve systems any more, because everybody's in the urban areas. Getting
all their needs met. Because in the meantime, what, what's happening in the
communities is they're shrinking our budgets, our, our population is growing,
and, and so, the term of indigenous becomes something that is he, you know,
it, it, it's, it's debated in, in so, on so many levels.
>> And I know you thought you'd get an, a very simple answer to your question, and
I'm sorry I'm not giving you that, but it's very complicated and it's really
about, and, and this is what I, what I wanna say is, in order to implement the
Declaration and to have all indigenous people's rights fully respected We have
to restore the role and the authority and the equality of indigenous women
throughout. Because there are some nations that have accepted the
patriarchal values that came over with the Mayflower and Columbus. I don't care
what nation you belong to. Indigenous women played a very important role in the
survival of our nations. And what colonization did, was disgusting, and,
you know Canadians need to realize that this genocide that happened in their
country, and if they do not implement this declaration Indigeneous women will
continue to have this marginalization /g. We have a wonderful project by Kristy
Bellcourt called Walking With Our Sisters to educate the canadian public about our
600 plus murdered and missing aboriginal women that the RCMP could give two hoots
about investigating. That's what Indigenous status is all about. Right
it's, it's about what are you gonna win? Well you look the latest report came out.
How many Indigenous peop whip children are living in poverty. So tell me that
Indian status has benefits . You know I forget which other question
>> She was affect-, I'm sorry. I'll, I'll end it right there. Sorry.
>> As a, as a bridge to answering your other question, I think it's worth noting as
well that, that those kinds of imposed definitions of who is and is not
indigenous, such as the Canadian government's imposition of Status
non-status. we see this around the world. We see states rejecting the very
existence of indigenous peoples. On the Declaration it's, it's quite clear that
it's not the power or the role of states to define who is and is not indigineous.
>> Is the right of indigenous people's to determine that for themselves. it said it
in, in Article 33. I think that, that's one of the, the things you look at in
comparison around the world, and you see the declaration comes to play in relation
to the unique realities of indigenous people's around the world. That so many
indigenous peoples, you know, suffer under a situation in which their very
existence is, is utterly denied. But the other part of your question was that
aspect of the what was the merge of an experience between meeting, working
alongside of and advocating together with indigenous peoples from other parts of
the world. How that experience shapes our understanding of indigenous rights. Maybe
Romeo? Cause you were talking your own experience of going to other nations over
the years. Just to, just to complete the, the aspect of the first question. Or the
question that was just answered. that's perhaps, the other reason why we don't
have, we don't have under the declaration a definition for indigenous peoples. Just
as under international law. We don't have a definiation for peoples who have that
right of self determination because there are complex issues. And Ellen is quite
right. These are rights that belong to the institutions of the indigenous
peoples themselves to determine, who is their citizens.
>> Marter citizens. one thing I noticed when I went to the truth and reconciliation
commission and to answer the, the second question. in Montreal us survival
survivors of residential schools to not have the opportunity to, to gather,
often. wherever, whatever we do in our lives today, wherever we are in our lives
today, we don't get to meet a lot of other survivors. And there was something
special when I attended the, the international event in Montreal. right
here two months ago, a month ago. And there was something special there and you
could feel the energy, the positive energy that was, that was present in that
room because of that there was so many residential school survivors in that same
room at the same time. something, there was something special there that I felt,
and, and similarly the experience in the work that we did at the International
level. all of a sudden and it's part of I guess the, the colonization of our
methalogies /g. And decolonization itself. When you get to meet people that
went through the same experiences, that went through the same hardships, that
went through the same injustices that I talked about earlier, the same grave
violations of their basic and fundamental human rights. From all parts of the world
you gather strength from that experience, because you get to say hey, my people are
not alone. We are not alone in this struggle, in this fight to achieve
finally justice for indigenous people around the planet. So that, that's the
single most >> A important element that I drew from my
experience, at least beside meeting all these wonderful people of course.
>> >> But, that experience of meeting, and discussing, and exchanging, and sharing
with other indigenous peoples and representative from around the world was
just a unique and And absolutely formidible for the network that we
managed to build from that and the continued friendships that we have today
and helping each other and reaching out to throughout the planet to our brothers
and sisters. That was unique. just to follow up, little bit on that, and the
international experience, and echoing Romeo's comments. One of the things that
was truly extraordinary in this work, is the way that indigenous peoples came from
every corner of the globe. many of them with the stories of the dispossession and
extreme human rights violations in their communities. And that, and that out of
that grew well eventually the Declaration, but also this incredible
movement. And we have now throughout the international human rights system, a, a
really concentrated focus on the rights of indigenous peoples, and the U.N. has a
United Nations permanent forum on indigenous issues, and who grand chief Ed
John is a member of that. the U.N. has a U.N. expert mechanism on the rights of
indigenous peoples, and Chief Wilton Littlechild is an expert member of that.
We have a special repetoire on the rights of indigenous peoples and all of those
things came through this process and remember that this process only began in
the late 70s, in terms of this really push on the international level. So, all
of that energy created a lot of positive things. And I think 1 of the other great
things about going outside of Canada. has been that we also can see, different ways
of looking at this work in different countries, and one of the things that
we've seen, I mean we find that in the current political climate in Canada, a
lot of this work is a big struggle. In other countries they're approaching it
differently, and and I think that's always useful to focus on because when
governments want us Say, "Oh, it's too difficult to do this work." or, you know,
"Oh, that's a set of lofty ideals, but how would you make that real in
principle?" But that's not what all governments are saying. And so just a few
quick examples of that. you know, the state of Denmark and Greenland have
reconfigured their political relationship And, and have proclaimed that, as de
facto implementation, of the U.N. declaration. that's a very serious
political move by a nation state to, to work with the people of, of Greenland on
what that relationship is now going to look like. And another example from Japan
During the negotiations of the declaration Japan repeatedly said we
don't have indigenous peoples. And Japan voted in favor of the declaration, and
after the declaration was adopted, Japan made a formal announcement that the Ainu
are indigenous people in Japan, and we recognized this because we have supported
the U.N. declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It doesn't mean that
the state of Japan and the Inu have worked out all their challenges. But, but
it's a step and one of the other ones that I just will draw your attention to
which is in the back of the new the booklets is there's a, a statement from
Norway which they've made several times which is The declaration contextualizes
all existing human rights, for indigenous peoples, and provides therefore a natural
frame of reference for work and debate relating to the promotion of indigenous
people's rights. And again it doesn't mean that the Sami and the government of
Norway don't have challenges, they do. But their approach is one of, okay so
let's use the declaration to address those challenges, and find a way to move
forward in corroboration rather than, and as Romeo said earlier or, with a
adversarial relationship >> So I think that that's one of the other
international components that we can see you know, we can approach some of these.
We can learn from how this is being approached in different areas of the
world, that we are not yet seeing here. >> I think we have time for one last
question. As I say to my students I always get the last word picking up in
exactly what you've been talking about and I'd, I'd like to direct this question
to you Ellen . You've mentioned three in, very, very, important concepts one was
education The second was Colonialism. And the third was Patriarchy. How do you see
the revitalization of indigeneity given the indemic. Difficulties with
patriarchy, with a continuation of colonialism which is invested in
globalization, and how do we ensure that sovereignty, in terms of education, is
revitalized. That's a, it's excellent question and it's extremely complex to
answer, but I'd, first thing that came to my mind is, one person at a time. One
step at a time and, and it's. You know, to, to, to quote a cliche, you know, you,
that, that you drop that pebble in, in, in the pond, and it ripples. And I, and I
think it's, we've been doing that for, for, for many, many generations, because
I just wanna add something to that, what, what was discussed At the, the CBD, the
convention of white adversity and the draft of the Goya protocol before it
became a protocol. I was speaking out, making interventions and refuting what
Canada was saying. And there was a woman from India, she was one of the indigenous
people from India, who came up to me afterwards and she said You are so brave,
because if I were to do that, here, when I return home to my country I would be
killed. And it really I've always appreciated the fact that I can say what
I say in Canada. I've had my privacy invaded and, you know, I'm, I, we're
still struggling to get any kind of justice for, for my community but. You
know, I appreciate the fact that York University is doing something like this.
I appreciate the fact that I have such intelligent and passionate people to work
with. In regards to promoting and protecting indigenous peoples rights, I
think the spark has already been there in revitalizing it. And, and, and it's to
regenerate as well, those things that have been attacked. There's so many
richness in human rights that we can look at And use in conjunction with our own
indigenous languages, culture, and customs. And, because, I think there's
one thing that, there's one common thread that, that, that is threatening every
single person in this room. It doesn't matter who you are. And that is the
threat to our environment that we depend on for life.
>> And if we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who are protesting the Tar
Sands, who are protesting Enbridge, who are protesting any kind of injustice
including, you know, this is gonna be controversial when i say, you know,
bringing, bringing a child soldier, Cotter, back from Bay A child soldier,
who I thought, you know, like in war, there is no such thing as *** because
when there is justice and I'll use what Jennifer said from Rosalie Silberman
Abella. We have no business figuring out the cost of justice until we can figure
out the cost of injustice. The education system in Canada and the U.S. and I think
indeed throughout the world has failed. It's failing everybody, but in particular
indigenous children. As the right to self determination includes the right to
control our own education and bring in our cultural legends And our, our
languages. I think we should be assimilating you. Cuz your assimilation
of us has not been working for us. And that's what the is about. You can live
with us but you have to understand that this is how we take care of the land. You
can live with us but this is how we take care of the water. You can live with us
but when you cut a tree you have to ask us because it's very important and we
have to ask permission. And that's what, that's what peaceful coexistence means.
And the webcasts. You know, I love this, this new medium that I'm really you know,
sometimes bugs me but, because I don't know how to use it properly. But this
medium of a webcast where people from another part of the world can listen to
us, hear what we're saying, is regenerating. Justice and education. So I
think we're, we're doing it. We just need to, to make the people who think that
money is the most important thing, we need to make them understand it. Because
at the end of the day, as, as another cliché, you cannot eat money. It will not
bring you happiness. But what does bring you happiness is when you feel good
inside about yourself and you've achieved that peace and you undrstand that we're
just a little speck in the the universe. This is the only planet we have to go on.
We're not gonna go to the moon and we're not gonna go to Mars tomorrow, so.
indigenous peoples rights are human rights. Indigenous peoples rights can
benefit you all. And, and we're not a threat. To anybody's energy security,
financial security. We. >> Are with you. you just need to start
paying more attention and then listening to us, is all. Thank you very much, it's
been an honor. >> I think we, I think we should let that be
the, the last word, and I hope you'll join me in thanking all of our panelists.
Paul Joff from the , Jennifer Preston and Al Gabriel. [APPLAUSE]