Free, prior and informed consent is not a right of anyone in our parliamentary democracy; our representatives thrash out the necessary compromises. Making all Canadian laws consistent with UNDRIP, as C-262 demands, would not just give Aboriginal Canadians rights not enjoyed by other Canadians, it would concede to small groups of them an absolute veto on many issues of resource development. This would be carrying the Supreme Court’s rebalancing of negotiating strength too far.
The Canadian Landowner Alliance advocates for provincial legislation that recognizes property rights, and, that the Federal Government of Canada enshrines property rights in the Charter of Rights and freedoms.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
SOME RESIDENTS "MORE EQUAL" THAN OTHERS IF C-262 ADOPTED
Two articles of particular interest are articles 26 and 19. Article 26 protects Aboriginal rights to all “lands, territories and resources” they have traditionally occupied. There are neither definitions nor exceptions — for example, to land ceded by treaty. And Article 19 requires Parliament and the provincial legislatures to obtain the “free, prior and informed consent” of Indigenous communities prior to adoption of legislation or administrative measures “that may affect them.”
Free, prior and informed consent is not a right of anyone in our parliamentary democracy; our representatives thrash out the necessary compromises. Making all Canadian laws consistent with UNDRIP, as C-262 demands, would not just give Aboriginal Canadians rights not enjoyed by other Canadians, it would concede to small groups of them an absolute veto on many issues of resource development. This would be carrying the Supreme Court’s rebalancing of negotiating strength too far.
Free, prior and informed consent is not a right of anyone in our parliamentary democracy; our representatives thrash out the necessary compromises. Making all Canadian laws consistent with UNDRIP, as C-262 demands, would not just give Aboriginal Canadians rights not enjoyed by other Canadians, it would concede to small groups of them an absolute veto on many issues of resource development. This would be carrying the Supreme Court’s rebalancing of negotiating strength too far.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment