COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF CANADA

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the seventeenth and eighteenth periodic reports of Canada on that country’s implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Diane Fulford, Assistant Deputy Minister for Citizenship and Heritage of the Department of Canadian Heritage, wished to highlight Canada's Action Plan against Racism, as one of the newest pillars supporting efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in Canada. That was a coordinated approach, which brought together some 20 different departments within the federal Government. Delivering on Canada's commitment to consult annually with stakeholders on progress, meetings had been held across the country. Overall the Action Plan had been very well received. New initiatives had also been put in place to respond to gaps in the areas of workplace discrimination; youth integration; race-based issues in the justice system; hate crimes; law enforcement; and broadening access to government programmes and services. The Action Plan was now nearing completion of its second year. Some recent highlights of its implementation included the release of the first year of hate crime data for the cities of London and Ottawa, and the active engagement of regional staff on the Racism-Free Workplace Strategy.

In preliminary remarks, Patrick Thornberry, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Canada, said the dialogue with Canada had encompassed a wide span of issues, and while they had heard some good news, there was still work to be done in certain areas. Observing that all societies were different and had their own particular circumstances arising from their histories, he also wished to highlight that there was also a certain sameness among all peoples, or there would be no room for the application of international norms. In that connection, he promised that the Committee would apply those norms with sensitivity to context.

Other Committee Experts raised questions on subjects pertaining to, among other things, the terminology used in Government policies to address racism, such as "ethnocultural communities", which appeared to define all non-white citizens as ethnic or "other"; the need for a monitoring mechanism for police anti-profiling policies; the reasons Canada had rejected the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; what involvement the Canadian National Human Rights Commission had had in preparing the periodic report; and whether Aboriginal peoples had the right to be educated in their own language and what rights they had to speak their own language.

The delegation of Canada included other representatives, coming both from the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations Office at Geneva, as well as from the following bodies and organs of Government: the Department of Canadian Heritage; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada; the Department of Justice of Canada; Human Resources and Social Development; the Ministry of Attorney General's Ontario; the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Québec; the Ministry of Immigration and Ethnocultural Communities of Québec; and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the reports of Canada, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 9 March.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public, on Thursday, 22 February, at 10 a.m., it is scheduled to consider implementation of the Convention in Congo, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea and Togo, under its review procedure for States parties whose reports are over five years late.

Report of Canada

According to the seventeenth and eighteenth periodic reports of Canada, submitted in one document (CERD/C/CAN/18), Canadians reported more than 200 ethnic origins in the 2001 Census, an increase of 25 per cent over the 1996 Census. Canada’s population that was born outside the country reached a 70-year high of 18.4 per cent. Visible minority groups account for 13.4 per cent of the population, while Aboriginal people (North American Indian, Métis, or Inuit) currently represent 3.3 per cent of the total population. The term “visible minority” is specific to the Employment Equity Act and is part of a particular program relating to employment only. By 2004, the Canadian Human Rights Commission had undertaken audits of 52 per cent of the approximately 500 employers subject to the Act and had found that 192 employers, representing 58 per cent of employees covered, were in compliance with the Act, and continued to require that the others take the necessary action to achieve compliance.

Regarding racism and anti-terrorism legislation, the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, consulted and continues to consult with members of Canada’s ethnocultural communities to learn how the Anti-terrorism Act has impacted their communities. The Act mandates a comprehensive Parliamentary review of its provisions and operation within three years of its coming into force. In hearings that began in February 2005, Parliamentary Committees examined a wide range of issues connected to the Act, hearing from numerous witnesses, including witnesses from the Canadian Islamic Congress, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Arab Federation. On 27 April 2004, the Government issued Canada's first comprehensive national security policy “Securing an Open Society”. A key element of this policy was the establishment of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, created to engage in a long-term dialogue on matters related to national security as they impact a diverse and pluralistic society. The Roundtable has met six times since its creation in 2004.

On 21 March 2005, the Government of Canada launched “A Canada For All: Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism” and committed $56 million over five years to several new initiatives to eliminate racism. “A Canada For All” also outlines initiatives and strategies that are part of existing programming within 20 departments. The objectives of the action plan are to strengthen social cohesion, further Canada's human rights framework, and demonstrate federal government leadership in the fight against racism. Some of the new or enhanced measures that the Government of Canada will take to eliminate racism in Canadian society include: the Inclusive Institutions Initiative, to strengthen partnerships between federal institutions and ethnocultural and ethnoracial communities to reflect Canadian diversity in federal policies, programmes, and services; the Law Enforcement and Aboriginal Diversity Network, to provide law enforcement agencies at all levels across Canada with training, support, and information on effective practices that will improve their capacity to serve Aboriginal, ethno-cultural, and ethnoracial communities; the standardization and collection of data related to crimes and incidents motivated by hate; the Welcoming Communities Strategy, which works with non-governmental organizations and provincial partners to foster a more welcoming environment in communities for newcomers to Canada; and the Racism-Free Workplace Strategy, which develops new measures and best practices that will be shared, ensuring that discriminatory barriers in Canadian labour markets are eliminated.

Presentation of Report

DIANE FULFORD, Assistant Deputy Minister for Citizenship and Heritage of the Department of Canadian Heritage, said that Canada was a country marked and enriched by the many different backgrounds of its population. And, the process of demographic change in Canada was likely to accelerate in the years ahead. By 2017, it was projected that one Canadian in five would be of non-Caucasian, non-Aboriginal background. Given that fact, it was particularly important for Canada to continue to take active measures to build a society where racial discrimination was not tolerated. Canadian society was built on a robust legal framework that advanced the principles of respect and equality of opportunity for all. Although Canada was not immune from acts of racial discrimination, policies and recourses were in place to address those issues and the Government was continually looking for ways to enhance and complement its efforts to combat racism.

Ms. Fulford was pleased to inform the Committee that, in the past year, Canada had acted decisively on a number of issues of particular interest to the Committee. For example, funds had been set aside for the creation of a new agency that would offer services to expedite foreign credential assessment and recognition, in an effort to address employment barriers faced by many immigrants. Further, an additional $307 million had been provided to help support immigration settlement services and supports. The right of permanent residence fee had also been cut in half. Moreover, a formal apology had been offered to the Chinese Canadian community for the head tax of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. A new recognition programme was being created to highlight the contributions of communities that might have been adversely affected by immigration and wartime measures in the past.

Turning to Aboriginal issues, Ms. Fulford agreed that members of Canada's Aboriginal communities did not all enjoy the same quality of life as other Canadians. However, Aboriginal health status had been improving in Canada. For example, the gap in life expectancy between First Nations and non-Aboriginal Canadians had narrowed considerably since 1980, and the gap in infant mortality rate, which fell by 60 per cent between 1979 and 1993, had continued to close. Despite those efforts, many Aboriginal communities faced particular challenges in terms of poverty, health and education, and Aboriginal health status was still below that of other Canadians. That situation was unacceptable. In response, Canada was taking concrete action on issues of particular concern to Aboriginal peoples.

In March 2006, the Government implemented the Protocol for Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Communities. Further, in May 2006, the Government approved a Settlement Agreement regarding the Indian Residential Schools to foster reconciliation and healing among all Canadians. That Agreement would broaden access to both compensation and mental health supports to all former students of Indian residential schools.

Working in partnership with First Nations leaders, Canada was also making progress on the question of matrimonial property rights on reserves. This year, a Ministerial representative was appointed to work with the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations in developing a plan for consultations, and that was just the first in a series of measures to protect the rights and to ensure the well-being of women, children and families living on reserves. To fight against violence against Aboriginal women, Canada continued to support the Sisters in Spirit of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Ms. Fulford also wished to highlight Canada's Action Plan Against Racism and a number of provincial and territorial strategies for fighting racism. “A Canada for All: Canada's Action Plan against Racism” as one of the newest pillars supporting efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. That was a coordinated approach, which brought together some 20 different departments within the federal Government. Delivering on Canada's commitment to consult annually with stakeholders on progress, meetings had been held across the country. Overall the Action Plan had been very well received during those meetings and stakeholders were very interested in seeing the work continue and expand. New initiatives had also been put in place to respond to gaps in the areas of workplace discrimination; youth integration; race-based issues in the justice system; hate crimes; law enforcement; and broadening access to government programmes and services. The Action Plan was now nearing completion of its second year. Some recent highlights of its implementation included the release of the first year of hate crime data for the cities of London and Ottawa, and the active engagement of regional staff on the Racism-Free Workplace Strategy.

Ms. Fulford recalled the important role played by provincial and territorial governments in the fight against discrimination. To cite just a few initiatives that had been implemented: Manitoba's restructuring in 2003 of its system for the protection of indigenous children and their families; in Québec, a parliamentary commission had been instituted with a view towards the elaboration of an anti-discrimination and anti-racism policy and plan of action; Ontario had created a Hate Crimes Community Working Group mandated to advise the government on strategies for reducing the incidence of hate crimes and to better address the needs of the victims of such crimes; and, in Alberta, the Help Make A Difference initiative encouraged Albertans to contribute to building a fair and respectful society.

Finally, Ms. Fulford said that Governments could not combat racism alone, and she wished to acknowledge the efforts of Canada's partners in contributing towards the elimination of racism, including individuals, local governments and non-governmental organizations.

Delegation's Response to Written Questions Submitted in Advance

Responding on the issue of “visible minorities”, the delegation said that the Committee had misunderstood Canada's use of the term. It was not the basis for any general definition of discrimination in Canadian law. Canadian law, the Constitution, and the territorial and federal law prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, national, ethnic origins, religion or other grounds. The term "visible minorities" was specific to the Employment Equity Act and identified a specific group that warranted special measures to address inequalities they faced in the employment sphere.

Regarding the lack of ratification of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the delegation said that, in Canada's view, the 1951 Refugee Convention, coupled with provisions of national law, effectively contained the same protections and that there was therefore no need to institute any new legislation.

On the issue of detention of undocumented asylum seekers, the delegation stressed that such detentions were rare, and were only done as a last resort. In 2006, less than 3 per cent of refugees were detained for identity reasons, and they had been held for an average of 18 days. The decision of the Refugee Board to detain asylum seekers for lack of identification was further subject to review, and a provision was allowed for the release of those detainees who had cooperated and if despite best efforts the Canada Border Services Agency was unable to establish the identity, the decision to detain a person was reviewed by the Immigration Refugee Board on a regular basis.

Regarding ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, in Canada's opinion, while they welcomed the intent behind that document, it was not considered an effective instrument to protect the rights of migrants in Canada. It also was incompatible with current legislation in place. On International Labour Organization Convention No. 169, Canada had been among the original negotiators of that Convention. However, consultations taken throughout the country in 1991 with federal, territorial and Aboriginal groups had demonstrated that there was no consensus on a number of its provisions. Aboriginal communities had notably expressed concern that that Convention did not contain a provision for the right to self-determination. Canada therefore had no plans to ratify either of those treaties.

On specific cases relating to hate speech against Arabs and Muslims, in 2002, nine cases regarding hate speech had been decided. All of the cases involved websites in which hate messages were posted on bulletin boards. None of those cases primarily targeted Arabs or Muslims and only two of those cases also targeted Arab and Muslim communities. In both of those cases the perpetrators had been found guilty of drafting and posting hate messages. In one, case discriminatory messages targeting First Nations, Roma, gays and lesbians, and others, including Arabs and Muslims had been posted, and a fine of $7,500 dollars imposed. In the second case, the targets had been anyone of non-Christian or non-Aryan origin, including Muslims and Arabs, and in that case the perpetrator had been fined 1,000 dollars.

Regarding amendments to sections of the criminal code and the Human Rights Act made to allow for the Anti-Terrorism Act, which came into force in 2001, the delegation noted that those amendments had been made to enhance protections already in law to protect from hatred those that were vulnerable because they belonged to an identifiable group.

Turning to steps taken by Canada to implement the recommendations contained in the reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, the delegation said that, first, there had been two reports issued by Justice O'Connor in this context. Canada had accepted all of the recommendations in the first report. Concerning the second report, the Government wished to take the time to carefully consider the recommendations made therein. The delegation highlighted the fact that Justice O'Connor, in his reports, had been careful to point out that racial profiling had not been present. He had recommended that the Government needed clear written policies on this issue, including for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as more training on issues of racial, religious and racial profiling. In that regard, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) already had a bias-free policing policy. The Canada Border Services Agency also did not engage in profiling based on race, religion or ethnicity. The second recommendation merely asked Canada to build on and enhance training of law enforcement professionals and outreach by law enforcement to communities that was already in place, the delegation underscored.

With regards to data on human trafficking, the delegation said that between 600 and 800 victims were trafficked into the country each year and some 1,500 to 2,200 victims were trafficked from Canada towards the United States. In 2006, measures were introduced to strengthen response to the needs of victims, including issuance of short-term residency permits for up to 120 days with access to Canada's federal health programme, which included trauma counselling.

With respect to addressing critical health problems that disproportionately affected Aboriginals, the delegation noted a number of programmes in place. On HIV/AIDS, the Government had a programme to stop the spread of the virus which currently had dedicated funds of $3.7 million to rise to $7 million over a five-year period.

Among the government programmes to support African Canadian students access to education and to reduce the drop-out rate for African Canadians, were the provision of $54 million annually to school boards as learning opportunities grants for children at risk in grades 7 to 12, the Reaching Higher Plan, promoting the participation of disadvantaged groups of students, including those of African origins, and the expansion of cooperative education to allow more students to benefit from acquiring work experience. The delegation noted that the Government also supported programmes to promote African Canadian learning at the local level.

In terms of Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of Radical Discrimination, Canada was not contemplating making a declaration under that article, accepting the competence of the Committee to consider individual communications from Canadian citizens or groups. In addition to the domestic remedies available, Canadians had three other international and regional mechanisms they could turn to: the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; and, as a member of the Organization of American States, individuals could complain to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. It was Canada's view that current domestic and international mechanisms were adequate to address complaints of racial discrimination in Canada. In addition, Canada was concerned about the Committee's broad interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention, by which all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority were held to be criminal, independent of intent. It was a fundamental principle of Canadian criminal law that intent had to be an element of a crime. In addition, in contrast to the Committee's view, Canada's approach was not to criminalize mere membership in organizations, in order to protect freedom of association, and to focus on sanctioning acts of individuals that were criminal.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert serving as Country Rapporteur for Canada, noted that Canada had been among the first countries to promote a policy of multiculturalism, and it had been an inspiring example. Also noteworthy was the broad spectrum of Canada's international commitments relevant to the Convention.

Regarding the term "visible minorities", Mr. Thornberry, acknowledged the delegation's response today, but said that it went further than that. The use of the term visible minorities seemed to somehow indicate somehow that "whiteness" was the standard, all others differing from that being visible.

The report mentioned several instances of affirmative action procedures and programmes undertaken by provincial governments, and Mr. Thornberry wished to know if those had been successful and what other such programmes there might be.

Mr. Thornberry commended Canada's Action Plan on Racism, but wished to know whether it had been the fruit of consultations with all those involved, and whether it contained targets, measurable goals or some kind of accountability framework. The impression given was that a policy of multiculturalism and the celebration of diversity did not in itself address issues of racism and balance of power. Could a more focused approach, based on anti-racism, rather than a policy applicable to all groups, be more effective, he wondered.

On the issue of indigenous communities, Mr. Thornberry noted that Canada was only one of two countries that voted against a declaration on indigenous people in the Human Rights Council. Observing that many Canadians not living in urban areas did not claim affiliation with any group, a definition of aboriginality or indigenousness would be appreciated. In addition, he was concerned about information supplied by an Aboriginal group on the implementation of jurisprudence in relation to indigenous groups litigating their claims, which contained many examples of resolute denial of such claims by the Crown and unfair burdens placed on indigenous peoples to prove those claims. Regarding separations, there appeared to be a disproportionate level of Aboriginal children in State care. In that connection, he wondered what the cause of those removals was and what effect it had on the communities involved.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, the terminology used in Government policies to address racism, such as "ethnocultural communities", which appeared to define all non-white citizens as ethnic or "other"; the need for a monitoring mechanism for police anti-profiling policies; the reasons Canada had rejected the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; what involvement the Canadian National Human Rights Commission had in preparing the periodic report; whether children of illegal migrants were excluded from the school system; given the growing trend of private policing, what was being done to ensure those private police received anti-discrimination training; whether Aboriginal peoples had the right to be educated in their own language and what rights they had to speak their own language; and why there was no member of Aboriginal or African descent in Canada's very large delegation sent to the Committee meetings.

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions

On the topic of multiculturalism, Ms. Fulford said that, regarding the composition of the delegation, in fact there were a number of the Committee members who were Aboriginal or from the various ethnocultural communities of Canada. Perhaps the delegation was not so visibly diverse as it in fact was. In future, it was hoped that that diversity would be even increased. In that context, visible minority was a term that was used in a very positive light in Canada, to provide targets for ethnocultural communities to participate in every aspect of Canadian society. There had been a particular emphasis in the public sector, both at the federal, provincial and territorial level, to ensure the inclusion and participation of ethnocultural communities in decision-making. Indeed it was their hope that the term would eventually become irrelevant, as there was a blurring of majority and minority over time. However, the comments of the Committee on the usage of the terminology would be taken under advisement and the future use of the term considered.

Multiculturalism was not the same everywhere, Ms. Fulford observed. The model that was being forged in Canada was one that continued to be adapted to a very unique Canadian context, and the Canadian model had evolved considerably since the 1970s and continued to do so. At the base of the model were four fundamental pillars, which remained unchanged: racism could not be tolerated; all citizens had to be able to enjoy full and equal civic participation in all aspects of Canadian society; capacity had to be built for ethnocultural communities to participate in decision-making; and institutional change had to be undertaken to reflect the changing composition of Canadian society. Canada’s efforts around multiculturalism needed to be balanced with the need to ensure social cohesion and a Canadian identity. It was not about teaching 100 languages, or having huge bureaucracies to ensure that each ethnocultural community was celebrating its diversity. They did not want to have islands of isolated communities. They were striving to allow every newcomer the opportunity to change the country, but it was also the hope that they, too, would be changed by the influence of the collective values of Canadian society.

On accountability, Ms. Fulford pointed out that the programmes around multiculturalism were designed to be measurable and results-oriented. They had requirements to actively monitor, measure and report to Parliament on the results of those programmes.

Another member of the delegation, speaking on Canada's Action Plan Against Racism, said that the Plan had been drawn up after a series of consultations with various ethnocultural groups throughout the country and the Government. Another consultation followed with federal agencies and ministries to identify racism within the Government itself. The Action Plan was a horizontal programme, which undertook over 20 programmes within various agencies and ministries. Each agency and ministry was responsible for measuring progress made. The Action Plan also committed the Government to consult annually with stakeholders and report on the process. In 2006 numerous consultations were held, and the response was that the stakeholders appreciated the programmes, but wished for them to be expanded.

Turning to provincial measures to combat discrimination, the delegation noted that Québec had undertaken several important initiatives, including holding two consultations to arrive at a policy and plan of action against discrimination this spring. The Black population, which mostly came from the West Indies, represented 2.2 per cent of the population of Québec, and was largely immigrant. On 8 February the Prime Minister of Québec announced the establishment of a consultation commission to examine religious and cultural accommodation practices, which would be starting next month. The delegation outlined Canada’s Racism Free Workplace Strategy and the situation of Aboriginal people and visible minorities in the federal public services and in federally regulated initiatives. British Columbia had adopted its own Multiculturalism Act, which required all government departments to monitor the impact they had on all ethnocultural communities and to report annually on that issue. In addition, British Columbia had developed a “Strategy to Stimulate Joint Action on Multiculturalism and to Eliminate Racism”, which was developed after consultations were held throughout British Columbia.

Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts

Experts asked further questions on various topics, including what were the specific barriers being experienced by various groups in society and what was the situation of religious fundamentalists in Canada.

Patrick Thornberry, the Committee Expert acting as Country Rapporteur for Canada, said that he appreciated the delegation's exposition of the multicultural model of Canada, and welcomed its reciprocal nature.

Replies by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that the dialogue on that issue with ethnocultural and other communities was ongoing. Economic performance of visible minorities and immigrants was an area of inequality, and barriers identified included language, skill sets, and professional accreditation. The Government had put measures in place to address all of those issues. Another possible barrier was racial discrimination, and that was why they were here today.

Regarding racism and anti-terrorism legislation, the delegation said that various Muslim and Arab organizations had appeared before the Parliamentary Committee before the Anti-terrorism Act was adopted. Since then, consultations and outreach had been held with representatives of various other cultural and religious communities including Arab and Muslim organizations, and the Parliamentary review of the Act, which had begun in 2004, was still ongoing. It was true that various representatives of Muslim and Arab communities had complained that the Anti-Terrorism Act gave the police the authority to employ racial profiling. However, the Act did not target any group; it was specifically crafted to target people and activities that harmed Canadians. Some of the safeguards in the Act included the requirement that the person intentionally cause certain kinds of serious harm, such as killing, but generally does not cover lawful or unlawful advocacy or stoppage of work. In addition, an interpretative clause had been added to the definition of “terrorist activity”, which qualified that the expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not in itself constitute a terrorist act without being accompanied by one of the serious harms enumerated in the definition of “terrorist activity”. In addition, with regard to the listing of entities, there was a mechanism to address the issue of mistaken identity, and the list of terrorist entities had to be reviewed every year by the Ministry of Public Safety. Since the Act came into force, there had only been two terrorist prosecutions currently and forthcoming; one involved a person charged in Ottawa, and another one involving 18 persons charged in Toronto last year.

On the issue of security certificates, the delegation said that among those who had security certificates issues against them were Islamic extremists, Russian spies, Sikh extremists and Arab extremists. The objective of the security certificates process was removal from Canada. The security certificate process had been reviewed numerous times, and had been found constitutional by the Federal Court of Appeal. Currently the Supreme Court of Canada was reviewing the constitutionality of the detention of foreign nationals and the process for the protection of national security information.

Turning to the issue of what tools the Human Rights Commission had to resolve complaints of discrimination, the delegation said that the federal Commission, which addressed the issue of discrimination in federal government bodies and agencies, had numerous mechanisms for resolving such complaints including negotiation and mediation. Complaints could also be referred to a tribunal for resolution.

With respect to the question of human rights commissions' involvement in the preparation of Canada's reports to human rights treaty bodies, provincial and territorial governments included input from their human rights commissions in drafting Canada's reports. Given their independence, however, the commissions were not normally part of the Canadian delegation in terms of presenting its reports.

On the wearing of the hijab, in Canada's experience it had not been a significant issue of discrimination. Students were allowed to wear the hijab in school, and a number of students did so. The legal standard in Canada was that religious practices would be accommodated until "undue hardship" was experienced, the delegation observed.

On Aboriginal issues, the delegation said that over the course of the past 30 years, the agreements that had been reached with Aboriginal groups had resulted, among other things, in the fact that 600,000 square kilometres of land in Canada was now owned outright by Aboriginal groups. To give an idea of how much that was, it would encompass the entire territories of France, Belgium and Switzerland together.

Regarding Canada's decision not to vote for the draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Human Rights Council, in the form it was adopted, Canada could not support its provisions regarding lands, territories and self-government. The delegation noted that no Canadian Administration had supported that Declaration in all of its current provisions. The draft declaration was now before the General Assembly, and Canada saw that as an opportunity to associate itself with other States and other indigenous groups to renegotiate that document. For Canada, it was very important that future consultations on the draft declaration involved the participation of indigenous groups.

On Aboriginal land rights, the prior "cede, release and surrender" approach to Aboriginal land titles had been abandoned. In that approach, Aboriginal peoples had to cede, release and surrender their rights in order to receive a grant from the Crown of a package of rights. Two new approaches had been formulated to replace that system. In the modification approach, there was an unbroken relationship between the rights that existed before and after the treaty was signed. A second approach was a non-assertion model. In that model Aboriginal rights were not released; the Aboriginal group agreed to exercise only those rights defined in the treaty and to assert no other Aboriginal rights. In that regard, the last three cases of indigenous land rights adjudicated in British Columbia did not involve release.

Regarding provincial agreements with Aboriginal groups, since 1998, the Government of Québec had undertaken several consultations with Aboriginal groups, resulting in several agreements. The agreement with the Cree on responsibility sharing, originally signed in 1976, had been renewed in 2002. An agreement concerning Nunavik was also signed. Both of them ensured that social services, such as education, health, and land management fell under the responsibility of First Nations. It also provided for their management of natural resources. In British Columbia, recently three treaties had been reached with Aboriginals in the interior, in urban centres, and in the rural/coastal area. All three treaties were now with the Aboriginal groups involved for ratification. Those treaties ensured the land rights, clarified boundaries, and outlined the specific rights to the land, that is, what aspects of ownership applied.

Further Remarks by Experts

Experts urged Canada to soften its position on the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in particular in view of the leading role Canada had played in the negotiations for that document.

Preliminary Remarks

PATRICK THORNBERRY, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Canada, thanked the delegation. There were many, many things he would like to comment on further. The dialogue with Canada had encompassed a wide span of issues, and while he had heard some good news, there was still work to be done in certain areas. He did not wish to prejudge what the Committee would do, but clearly the concluding observations and recommendations made would be based on the questions and comments made yesterday and today.

All societies were different and had their own particular circumstances arising from their different histories, Mr. Thornberry observed. However, there was also a certain sameness or there would be no room for the application of international norms. In that connection, he promised that they would apply those norms with sensitivity to context.