"There is an excellent reason to not sign - UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides for a veto to indigenous people which is contrary to the law as developed in Canada that requires principled and fair consultation but no veto."
reference: "Former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Chuck Strahl described the document as "unworkable in a Western democracy under a constitutional government."[31] Strahl elaborated, saying "In Canada, you are balancing individual rights vs. collective rights, and (this) document ... has none of that. By signing on, you default to this document by saying that the only rights in play here are the rights of the First Nations. And, of course, in Canada, that's inconsistent with our constitution." He gave an example: "In Canada ... you negotiate on this ... because (native rights) don't trump all other rights in the country. You need also to consider the people who have sometimes also lived on those lands for two or three hundred years, and have hunted and fished alongside the First Nations."[32]"
TRUE. But maybe First Nations should get a veto, as an honourable return to the truth that their indigenous rights to the land trump ours? (As opposed to a sum of history of legal jurisprudence where ours trump theirs.) Legally however, in terms of what it could do to the history of jurisprudence (as opposed to just going forward), this seems to be the big one:
"I think the reason it scares the living crap out of both Canada and more even the US is that it has language that specifically abrogates the Doctrine of Discovery. And that has major legal ramifications, very true. Ones that are very much deserved and yes it is very much enshrined into law. you're very right, it's contrary to the law as developed in Canada. it's probably the biggest land disenfranchisement move based on religious discrimination to have ever occurred in history and it is enforced by the courts.
The reason it has far greater legal ramifications for the United States rather than Canada is the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which Canada never abrogated by holding a revolution to liberate itself of laws that would inhibit its ability to genocidally cleanse the West. Because of this and its colonial ties, the UK had to explicitly cover its a** in the UN to protect itself from lawsuits initiated in Canada.
Once a Liberal, always a Liberal. Make up looks great. No actual reform. Especially not with the Kinder Morgan Pipeline in play right now as a legal precedent where First Nations should get the veto under UNDRIP. OOPS!
However there is real bricks and mortar legal integration (which includes legal reform) in order, and this will not be easy. What Canada stated when (we) signed:
"In 2016, Canada officially adopted and promised to implement the declaration fully. Speaking at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada minister Carolyn Bennett announced, "We are now a full supporter of the declaration, without qualification. We intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution."[37] Bennett described the Declaration as "breathing life into Section 35 [of the Canadian Constitution] and recognizing it as a full box of rights for Indigenous Peoples in Canada."[37] In July 2016, Kwakwaka’wakw Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould gave a speech that stated that "adopting the UNDRIP as being Canadian law are unworkable", due to its incompatibility with the Indian Act, the current governing statute.[38]" -wikipedia
You could run a train through the gap when it comes to integrating this with our present Constitution. And then there's the Indian Act.... and so on and so forth.
Or now maybe you know that the US and Canada were legally established as colonial enterprises. It's so integral to their creation they truly can never bring themselves to either co-sign or integrate the legal ramifications of becoming signatories. (Trudeau did, though.)
The original four votes against? Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
wiki on United Kingdom: "Speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom government, UK Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Karen Pierce, "emphasized that the Declaration was non-legally binding and did not propose to have any retroactive application on historical episodes. National minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories did not fall within the scope of the indigenous peoples to which the Declaration applied."[51]
The UK position was also clearly intended to prevent formal appeal of Canadian decisions to UK courts: Canadian indigenous peoples never accepted the 1982 constitution in which such appeal (regarding early treaties made with the Crown of the British Empire) was cut off. Under the prior 1867 constitution, 1920s Dominion of Canada and earlier law, which continue to apply to these peoples and treaties, the UN DRIP could have been pleaded in a UK court in conflicts between treaty and Canadian law. Calls to pursue this approach have been common among Canadian natives. [6]"
You must install Adobe Flash to view this content.