STATEMENT BY THE

DELEGATION OF CANADA

TO THE PLENARY MEETING CONVENED IN RELATION TO THE

UN DRAFT DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Delivered by: Ambassador John McNee

Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations New York, June 29, 2007

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for convening this plenary meeting. I would like to express our appreciation for taking on the very challenging role of moderator relating to the issue of the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am confident that, under your leadership, the time remaining before the end of the current session of the General Assembly will be sufficient to allow interested parties to come to a solution. The meetings that you have already chaired over these past two weeks have opened the way for meaningful exchanges among all concerned.

Canada welcomed the decision of the General Assembly to engage in further consultations on the Draft Declaration. We continue to believe that a positive outcome, with the broadest possible support and agreement, can be achieved through negotiations, within the time constraints identified by the General Assembly.

Canada has long been a proponent of a strong and effective Declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognize the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world.

Since 1985, when the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations decided

to produce a Declaration on indigenous rights, Canada has been an active participant in

the process. We have made constructive proposals and recommendations to help

discussions move ahead, while at the same time identifying concerns with specific

provisions of the text as it evolved. Canada continued to participate actively throughout the Working Group on the Draft Declaration from 1995 to early 2006.

While extensive discussions took place during the time of this working group, it was only in 2004 with the full participation of member States and indigenous representatives that these negotiations began to produce an improved document through extensive changes to the text. Prior to 2004, only two articles were provisionally adopted, and after the initial ten years of work, it was clear that the text did not enjoy sufficient support for adoption

Real, substantive negotiations only began in 2004, when it became clear that the Working

Group recess was at risk of termination if further progress could not be achieved. With

the full participation of member states and indigenous organizations between 2004 and

2006, these negotiations led the way forward to fruitful compromises and an improved

text.

This experience is important. It demonstrates that opening the text now, in the General Assembly, will not have the negative impact suggested by some. It is important to emphasize that these same concerns were voiced in 2004. They were proven unfounded

2

then. They are unfounded now. Changes in this draft text can result in the achievement of a wider, stronger consensus, not further division.

A negotiating process used during negotiations on this issue in 2004 and 2005 will readily demonstrate that it is indeed possible to continue to refine language without jeopardizing the central objective to which all of us are firmly committed. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that we can open some portions of this text to further discussion and negotiation without damaging its essential principles and balances.

In June 2006, Canada voted against the current text when it came before the Human Rights Council because there continued to be key difficulties with certain of its provisions. For Canada, our areas of greatest concern relate to the portions of the text having to do with lands and resources; free, prior and informed consent; self-government or autonomy; intellectual property; military issues: and the balance between the rights and obligations of indigenous peoples, member States and third parties.

In pursuing a Declaration which has a wide level of support, we have reviewed a variety of options which you and others have explored over the past several weeks in search of a way forward on this issue. It is our assessment that only changes to the text can overcome our difficulties. Changing the covering resolution, or similar proposals outside of the text itself, does not address our fundamental concerns.

At the same time, Mr. Chairperson, we concur with you when you indicate a reluctance to open the entire text in the limited amount of time we now have available. For that reason, we and a number of other interested delegations have provided to you an elaboration of the nine areas of concern which reflect the range of concerns which these interested delegations have with the current text. We believe that a thematic approach to discussions and negotiations, in which the text is discussed under the heading of each key concern, rather than sequentially as they appear in the text, would help focus negotiations on a discreet, clear and manageable number of articles. The thematic approach has a number of other advantages. It allows participants to follow the logic and reasoning behind the key themes, while not opening for further discussion issues on which agreement or consensus has already been forged. We can thus focus on a “minimal change” approach to negotiations in order to seek the fewest possible changes possible to achieve the maximum or widest consensus.

Clearly, at this late date in the work of the General Assembly, we need a focussed and time-limited process to consider these issues in a concerted attempt to forge greater consensus. There is also a need to ensure that representatives of indigenous peoples are involved in these discussions and negotiations.

3

If further negotiations do not take place, there is a real risk that a substantial number of countries with significant indigenous populations will not be in a position to support the Declaration. This would be detrimental to the goal shared by all of us here today of addressing the discriminations and inequalities faced by indigenous peoples in many parts of the world.

In summary, Mr. Chairperson, we believe that the best way to achieve a strong, effective Declaration which enjoys the widest possible support among States and indigenous peoples is to work together on proposals to change the current draft text. We believe that the time to conclude work on a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is now with your help and the good will of all concerned.

[Re-typed to eliminate margin problems with “scanned” copy.]

4