Nunavut senator abstains from vote on Indigenous human-rights law
Bill C-15 leaves questions unanswered and was rushed through, says Dennis Patterson
Senator Dennis Patterson, Nunavut’s only representative in the upper house and a member of the Conservative Party, abstained from voting on Bill C-15, which was passed on Wednesday. (File photo)
Nunavut Senator Dennis Patterson abstained from voting on a federal bill to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on Wednesday.
Adopted by the United Nations general assembly in 2007, UNDRIP outlines minimum standards for the well-being of Indigenous Peoples, including self-determination, rights to traditional lands and equal human rights.
Bill C-15, which was passed by Parliament this week, requires Canada’s laws to align with UN’s declaration.
“Inuit and Nunavummiut clearly wanted this bill so I couldn’t vote against it,” Patterson said in an interview. “But there were First Nations who were very adamant that this bill not pass.”
As the Conservative critic for Bill C-15 in the Senate, Patterson said he was concerned by how it was created without enough consultation with Indigenous groups.
This was “absolutely” ironic, Patterson said, considering UNDRIP itself has as a core tenet that countries need to consult with Indigenous Peoples to get free, prior and informed consent before adopting any laws that will affect them.
“One would have thought that this would have been an area where the government would have been scrupulous about grassroots-up, rather than top-down consultations,” Patterson said.
Many complaints about inadequate consultation came from treaty rightsholders in the provinces, with more complex governing structures than Inuit, he said.
“Inuit are organized,” he said, describing various groups set out to represent Inuit interests, like Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Inuit Youth Council and Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada.
“It’s certainly not so easy amongst First Nations,” he said, describing the overlap between historic and modern treaties, hereditary systems and elected systems, and nations listed under the Indian Act as well as traditional nations.
“Significant swaths of the population were completely left out.”
In a speech explaining his reasoning for abstaining from the vote — which he said was probably the longest one he’s ever given — Patterson also said there are too many unanswered questions about the bill.
That includes what exactly free, prior informed consent entails, and who gets to grant consent.
With a possible federal election looming, Patterson said the bill was rushed.
“We were very notably being pushed [to pass the bill],” he said. “They weren’t saying it openly, but it was certainly understood.”
A previous version of the bill, introduced in 2016, was not passed through Parliament before the 2019 election, stopping its progress in the Senate.
Patterson also pointed to how Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami had requested the bill be amended to add the creation of an Indigenous human rights commission.
But ITK president Natan Obed said this was “purposely misunderstood” by Patterson, and the organization fully endorsed Bill C-15.
“We said it was a positive piece of legislation that could be further improved by the creation of the Indigenous Human Rights Tribunal,” Obed said in an interview.
Since that wasn’t added to the bill, Obed said he hopes to see the tribunal in the action plan, which will come after Bill C-15 receives royal assent and becomes law.
Currently, Obed said systems in place to address human rights abuses or violations against Indigenous people are not robust enough.
“They don’t allow for the holding of our Indigenous rights in a way that most other Canadians could access.”
An Indigenous human rights tribunal, which ITK has been lobbying for since 2017, would be a place for Indigenous peoples’ rights to be heard.
Obed said the bill passing is more than a symbolic gesture and “this is a long time coming for Canada.”
“It’s great to think that we are now living in a time where the Government of Canada recognizes that the rights of Indigenous peoples are human rights,” he said. “That is progress for this country.”
We’re all indigenous to planet earth. Human rights for all, regardless of race. Divisions don’t even help the people they’re supposed to help.
What is going on here?!? Who are all the people liking this comment? Please tell me you aren’t Nunavummiut. Of course human rights for all – nothing here is taking rights away from anyone else. Saying we don’t need divisions is usually code used by the priveleged for not making reparations to those that pay for that privelege (though it can be just ignorance sometimes). Those divisions are already there in society, very clear to those that aren’t on the easy side of privelege. Using those divisions, like race, to make reparations is in pursuit of equity, and is an act to end divisions, not create them.
I love how the ‘likes’ on this are in competition, obviously being manipulated on both sides.
I’m not generally a fan of Patterson, but this is absolutely the right decision – way to go!
Dennis is a master brand manipulator who knows how and when to kiss the ass of Inuit and be loyal to Harper and the Conservative brand. He’s merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Do the honourable thing and step down now.
Yes dennis step down. U r really a wolf in sheeps clothing. I think i know why u hate nunavut. Ur r sitting with personal grudges so step down…..
UNDRIP is really a mechanism for entrenching the power of rich Indigenous leaders and preventing access for the marginalized to the high-tech economy. For Nunavut, Indigenous rights mean making sure that next generations do NOT become the doctors and dentists, geologists end engineers in their own lands. It’s a template for apartheid and perpetual marginalization as was intended by the whites in South Africa
This is what UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says:
“Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
And here’s the mission statement of Hendrik Verwoerd, architect of apartheid in South Africa, promoted the kind of self-determination that Indigenous oligarchs are claiming:
“The policy of separate development is the basis of the happiness, security and stability which are maintained by means of a homeland, a language and a government peculiar to each people.”
This approach is the polar opposite of the idea that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian—with all citizens having equal rights, duties and opportunities.
So you would presumably recommend rescinding the Nunavut Agreement?
I’m guessing the Conservative Party machinery is behind the slant of comments here. This comment is manufactured to confuse. Just because racist policies such as apartheid were used to suppress, doesn’t mean UNDRIP is, which is about empowering indigenous peoples to manage themselves free of colonial interference. That’s like saying since there was a wolf dressed like a sheep in South Africa, then all sheep must be wolves. The wolf here is people trying to play off classes of indigenous people against each other, like this commenter, to turn people against free determination of indigenous people.
Brad, blaming the conservative party, or conservatives in general, seems to be a little too convenient and is a distraction from the real issues in this conversation.
Be careful and think about the wake you make man.
Ha, ha, I like it, Humpty Dumpty! I don’t blame conservatives in general at all, and I blame all the political parties equally because they all have machinery that jumps on anything political in the media. When there is a surprising number of thumbs up or down and it is a political article, I suspect non-Nunavummiut professional party workers. I just think it is worth noting that. Sorry if it distracts. I think my points are apolitical and still stand.
Brad, I’m curious, what in the present moment do you see as standing in the way of the “free determination of indigenous peoples”?
Perhaps we could dig in a little deeper than references to abstractions like “colonialism” and “systems,” unless you want to flesh those out, which rarely seems to get done.
Your reference to class is interesting as well. It is not hard to notice the clear emergence of class distinctions among Inuit in Nunavut, for example… do you think that there is solidarity among indigenous people that transcends class, or are class interests and class consciousness among them no different and no less a force than someone like Marx might have noticed in the 19th century London?
It sure sounds like Non-resident so-called Senator of Nu is using the ‘unorganized First Nations Group’ as an excuse for not supporting UNDRIP. Really? calling First Nation peoples ‘unorganized’ rather than the colonialist created system of Treaties?. And rather than having a main focus of advancing the Rights and interests of Nunavut’s majority population more worried about towing the party line. Selfish. What a waste.
It’s unusual that I defend our Senator, but this is such a dishonest, bad faith interpretation of the text that I felt the need to respond.
Nothing in Patterson’s statement says or even vaguely implies calling First Nation peoples ‘unorganized.’
What he does say is there are groups who feel the bill should not pass at this time due to lack of proper consultation.
Careful, Uvanga, your commitment to misrepresenting the views of others is unlikely to go unnoticed. Is that the kind of reputation you want?
“Inuit are organized,” he said, “It’s certainly not so easy amongst First Nations,” he said. What does this mean then?
He said no such thing, as a close reading of this article and the text of his statements will show.
However, Obed did very clearly call the First Nations disorganized. There he goes, stoking the divisions between Inuit and First Nations, which he has a long habit of doing.
Of course Conservative mouth-pieces will oppose UNDRIP, while virtue signaling that they are “abstaining” for noble reasons. When Conservatives inevitably re-take Parliament, they absolutely do not want UNDRIP interfering with their plans for mass exploitation of the North/FN-occupied lands. By abstaining, they get to pretend like they care about Inuit/FN, oppose the Liberals/NDP, AND protect their future interests. It’s not very complicated…
If anyone ever tells you “it’s not complicated” in a discussion about politics, be very skeptical… it is far more likely that the exact opposite is true.
UNDRIP is basically a pig in lipstick.
It tries to look nice, but it’s still a pig.
It won’t help us as Indigenous peoples. It will only further the ability of corrupt chiefs & councils to block progress and resource development that provides jobs and income to Indigenous communities.
This is very, very dangerous policy, and it should never be allowed to become law.
Nunatsiaq, it would have been a good idea to post a copy, or a link to, UNDRIP in the article so people can reference it:
Here it is:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html
They try to over power citizens,no human rights, corruption, discrimination.
This was a principled act by Senator Patterson. This is a flawed bill that accomplishes nothing and was passed despite the objections of many Indigenous groups. It is “a plan to make a plan,” and with a two-year time frame for making that plan. As recently as last week, amendments proposed by First Nations groups to make it a better bill were voted down in the Senate. The untrustworthy Liberal government were in a hurry to rush this through before rising for the summer, as they likely will not sit again before their much-desired fall election. And so the Senate, which Trudeau has stacked with completely partisan Liberals, voted down amendments that would have made it a better bill, and passed it. This bill will do harm, because Indigenous people will eventually realize that they have been duped once again, and resentment will rise. This bill does nothing for reconciliation. A sad day for Indigenous people and for Canada.