A10 OTHEGLOBEANDMAIL | MONDAY,NOVEMBER25,
EDITORIAL
PHILLIPCRAWLEY
PUBLISHERANDCEO
DAVIDWALMSLEY
EDITOR-IN-CHIEFB
ritish Columbia is about to become the first place in
Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous People.
The NDP provincialgovernment in late October intro-duced a bill that calls on it, working with Indigenous people,
to “take all measures necessary” to align the laws of B.C. with
UNDRIP. The UN passed the declaration and its 46 articles as
a non-binding resolution in 2007. The B.C. bill is on track to
become law as soon as this week.
And yet it is still not clear what UNDRIP in B.C. law willmean, or what the consequences will be. There are concerns
about the phrase “free, prior and informed consent” in a
number of articles in the declaration – including around
resource development. The meaning of consent is undefined
and the impact is difficult to predict. This page has previously
expressed these worries, but there may be a silver lining in
B.C.’s move to codify the declaration.
When the bill was introduced, Premier John Horgan saidthe idea that consent equals a veto is false. Mr. Horgan said
UNDRIP is about making sure Indigenous people are “full
participants in discussions about development.” But in an
interview with The Globe and Mail, he acknowledged the
impact of UNDRIP will be unknown until the courts rule on
inevitable legal challenges based on the declaration.
“Consent is subjective,” Mr. Horgan said. If this were statedin the context of sexual relations, such an observation would
not fly. On UNDRIP, Mr. Horgan said the subjective nature of
consent is “where the courts may have an interpretation.”
Canada, though, already has settled law and constitutionalprovisions that spell out Indigenous rights and the param-
eters of the duty to consult. A number of key Supreme Court
of Canada decisions have come out of B.C.
Canada also has an extensive and lengthy (and slow andcostly) system of industrial project review – one Ottawa has
revamped with a greater emphasis on Indigenous consulta-
tions. UNDRIP does not land here in a tabula rasa. We don’t
need a UN intervention to recognize Indigenous rights.
Indigenous people have had to fight to establish and thenprotect those rights. The Supreme Court has made clear what
is required, butthe current and previousfederalgovern-
ments failed to properly consult Indigenous groups on major
pipeline projects. Indigenous groups had to go to court to
prove Ottawa had not respected what was already the law.
There’s no question Ottawa can do better, but we don’t need
UNDRIP for that.
The B.C. bill is modelled after a federal private member’sbill that passed the House of Commons last year, but died in
the Senate before this fall’s federal election. In 2015, when the
Liberals were Canada’s third party, they rushed to embrace
the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Com-
mission, the adoption of UNDRIP being key among them.
The Liberals have since promised federal legislation by the
end of 2020 that “fully respects the intent of the declaration.”
Proponents of UNDRIP say it will not significantly changehow Canada’s laws work – but then why is passing legislation
so important? And if it will change the rules of how industrial
projects are reviewed and approved, then should B.C. and
Canada want to codify it in such a way?
The B.C. bill does differ with its federal cousin. The versionthat passed the Commons had a line that said UNDRIP would
be “affirmed as a universal international human rights
instrument with application in Canadian law.” Former
Supreme Court Justice John Major – who argues implement-
ing the vision of UNDRIP is “vital” – questioned this partic-
ular wording, saying it “could have unpredictable effects.”
The B.C. bill does not contain the phrase.
That leads us to the positive aspect of B.C.’s plan to imple-ment UNDRIP. It will apply only in one province, and it will
give voters across the country,and the federalgovernment, a
chance to see how this works in practice, what it changes and
if those changes are positive or negative.
B.C.’s move also provides an opportunity for Ottawa toslow down. The Liberals have promised their own bill but
instead could use the next few years of this minority federal
government to study the effects of UNDRIP in the province.
Legal challenges will arrive sooner than later. The Liberals
can weigh their promise of federal legislation on such results
- and if they proceed, how best to craft their approach. The
federal Liberals want to move fast – B.C. offers time for
additional consideration.
B.C.’sgrand
experimentin
nativerights
PIPE UPRe Quebec Rations Propane
Ahead Of Looming Shortage As
CN Rail Strike Drags On (Nov.
22): It’s ironic that Quebec, so
opposed to an Eastern pipeline,
now faces propane shortages
owing to the CN Rail strike. If a
pipeline were in place, the prov-
ince would not be in this situa-
tion.
Pipelines should not be seen
as evil. They offer a secure sup-
ply source with minimal green-
house gas emissions, far better
than shipping by rail or truck.
It seems as though karma is
now taking place in Quebec.
Miles MatulionisCalgaryCABINET CHALLENGESRe Top Of The Agenda: Selling
Both National Unity And Envi-
ronment (Nov. 21): Many resi-
dents of Western Canada feel dis-
advantaged relative to Quebec.
Any alienation might more prop-
erly be considered frustration or,
as Quebec may see it, envy.
Ottawa will likely have little
success in the West until Quebec
is brought into line with the rest
of the federation. Chrystia Free-
land seemed to be no peacemak-
er in her international portfolio.
The national challenge is, if any-
thing, even more formidable.
C. R. LuftMississaugaDon’t like Albertan oil? Don’t be
a hypocrite. Throw away our
cars, cellphones, clothing and
anything else made in part from
petroleum-based goods.
Imagine what extras in Cana-
dians’ lives could be attained by
selling Alberta’s oil at better pric-
es on the world market: Better
health care and education, lower
debt for our children and grand-
children – and a realistic plan to
transition to other energy sourc-
es. The possibilities are endless.
Murray EdworthyCalgaryTAKING OUR TALENTS TO ...Re Climate Talk (Letters, Nov.
21): A letter writer hits the nail
on the head over the absurdity
of per capita measures of green-
house gas (GHG) emissions, but
perhaps not for the reasons he
notes. Rather, I believe it is the
futility of any action we take as a
sparsely populated industrial
country that contributes less
than 2 per cent of world GHG to-
tals – even completely eradicat-
ing our emissions would be mea-
ningless. It would be more mea-
ningful if Canada applied its en-
gineering talent to helping the
world adapt to the challenges of
widespread warming, and help-
ing to develop the industrial-
scale decarbonization of the at-
mosphere that seems to be the
only real solution.
J. Paul Ruffell
Qualicum Beach, B.C.WHOA, NELLYRe Vancouver Needs Action, Not
Planning (Editorial, Nov. 22):
One obvious idea: Vancouver is
growing faster than it can adjust
to meet and service the ever-in-
creasing population.
A controlled slowdown would
allow city infrastructure and
planning to catch up to demand- and catch its breath.
Bill BousadaCarleton Place, Ont.
MEDICINE MATHRe Drug Maker Urges Patients To
Speak Out On Cheaper Medica-
tions (Nov. 22): Janssen Inc. says
that requiring stable patients to
switch from Remicade to a bio-
similar for no medical reason is
of great concern.
I would argue that he who
pays the piper is entitled to call
the tune, and provinces owe it to
taxpayers to get the best bang for
their buck on health-care spend-
ing.
If a patient wishes to stay on
Janssen’s biologic, they should
be allowed to do so, but they
should have to pay for it them-
selves. Some may call that two-
tier health care. I call it common
sense.
Adam PlackettTorontoBAD DRIVERS, GOOD IDEASRe Deaths By Car Can’t Be Less
Important Than Where Drivers
Want To Go (Nov. 21): I am a
hearing-impaired pedestrian liv-
ing in downtown Toronto. Since I
cannot hear traffic noises, I use
my eyes to connect with cars on
the road. And now that I walk
with my six-year-old daughter,
we have refined our practice for
defensive walking.
Walk on the sidewalk against
traffic to observe oncoming vehi-
cles. Never enter an intersection
before all vehicles have stopped.
Establish and maintain eye con-
tact while crossing the street.
Wave through drivers who ap-
pear hurried or distracted.
Stay on the inside of the side-
walk and away from the curb.
Know your blind spots. Give
yourself lots of time to reach
your destination. I imagine a vi-
sually impaired person would
have auditory cues to contribute
to this routine.
Regardless of law enforce-
ment and infrastructure, a pe-
destrian of any ability must nev-
er forget they are the most vul-
nerable person on the street.
Kristen MorinTorontoRe Distracted Driving Kills. Why
Do We Do It? (Nov. 18): One re-
sponse to distracted driving
would be to redesign the roads.
In Toronto’s north end, for ex-
ample, Yonge Street can feel sim-
ilar to a dangerous highway.
From 2010 to 2017, 78 pedestri-
ans were hit by vehicles there;eight died or suffered major in-
jury.
Expanded sidewalks, physical-
ly separated bike lanes, addition-
al traffic lights and lower speed
limits would make this thor-
oughfare safer for everyone. We
may not be able to end bad driv-
ing, but we can make it less
deadly.
Gideon FormanTorontoNot that many years ago, it was
unusual for there to be an acci-
dent. Now, it’s a daily expecta-
tion. But it’s not only distracted
driving that kills. A bigger prob-
lem is that drivers don’t follow
the rules of the road.
Keeping distance from a car in
front means getting cut off. Pass-
ing on the left and moving back
to the middle is practically un-
known. Using the right lane if
you are slow – not any more.
That, apparently, is another pass-
ing lane. And if someone doesn’t
like another driver’s speed, well,
just pull up and hang on their
tail.
Meanwhile, there’s no patroll-
ing of these behaviours; it would
cost too much. We should have
road cameras with consequen-
tial fines, point reductions and
impoundment for repeat offend-
ers – of the car, that is, and, bet-
ter still, its driver.
Carol TownHamiltonMAN IN THE MIRRORRe My Husband, Woof (Letters,
Nov. 20): I think columnist David
Eddie misses the point. The re-
cently retired husband in ques-
tion seems depressed and his
lack of care in his appearance is
being treated as a bit of a joke.
Suggesting communication
methods similar to dog training
feels hurtful.
Retirement years are not gold-
en to everyone. He seems to
have lost his reason to get up in
the morning.
Some more care and compas-
sion by his partner, as he works
his way through this change in
life, would go much further than,
as one letter writer suggests,
“some extra kibble and water.”
Karen ShorttNanaimo, B.C.As a professor, I dressed in boots,
jeans and a bulky sweater in win-
ter; sandals, shorts, and T-shirt
in summer.
Once, when I went into my
building, some construction
workers saw me approaching
and said to me: “You’re late,
we’re already working on the
second floor.”
Reiner JaaksonOakville, Ont.LETTERSTOTHEEDITOR
Thesubjectwhoistrulyloyaltothechiefmagistratewillneitheradvisenorsubmittoarbitrarymeasures-Junius
LetterstotheEditorshouldbe
exclusivetoTheGlobeandMail.
Includename,addressanddaytime
phonenumber.Keeplettersunder
150words.Lettersmaybeeditedfor
lengthandclarity.E-mail:
[email protected]SINCLAIRSTEWART
DEPUTYEDITOR
CHRISTINEBROUSSEAU
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,NEWS
DEREKDECLOET
EXECUTIVEEDITOR
EDITOR,REPORTONBUSINESS
SHAWNARICHER
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,
FEATURESANDSPORTSANGELAPACIENZA
MANAGINGEDITOR,EXPERIENCE
GARYSALEWICZ
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,EXPERIENCEDENNISCHOQUETTE
HEADOFENTERPRISE
TONYKELLER
EDITORIALPAGEEDITORSYLVIASTEAD
PUBLICEDITOR
NATASHAHASSAN
OPINIONEDITOR