Government ministers call the declaration inconsistent with the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They note that the Declaration merely reaffirms the collective rights of indigenous peoples and fails to reconcile the individual and collective rights or rights of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. No credible legal reason has been put forward to support these exceptional and erroneous assertions.1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own language and to have access to all forms of non-Indian media without discrimination. 1. Aboriginal people have the right to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of the person. The declaration establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity, well-being and rights of the world`s indigenous peoples. The declaration deals with both individual and collective rights; Cultural rights and identity; Education, health, employment, languages and others. It prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and encourages their full and effective participation in all issues that affect them. It also guarantees its right to remain different and to pursue its own priorities in economic, social and cultural development. The Declaration expressly advocates harmonious relations and cooperation between states and indigenous peoples. It remains to be seen how THE formal approval of UNDRIP will change Aboriginal rights on the ground in Canada. The declaration is also consistent with Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, which states, “The Aboriginal and contractual rights of Aboriginal people in Canada are recognized and confirmed here.
Indigenous peoples must not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. Relocation cannot be done without the free, prior and informed agreement of the indigenous peoples concerned and after an agreement on fair and equitable compensation and, where possible, with the possibility of return. 2. States conduct effective consultations with indigenous peoples concerned with appropriate procedures, including through their representative institutions, before using their lands or territories for military activities. 2. States take effective measures to ensure the protection of this right and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can be understood and understood in political, legal and administrative procedures, if necessary by interpretation or by any other appropriate means. In 2007, New Zealand`s Minister of Maori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, called the declaration “toothless” and said, “There are four provisions that cause us problems that make the declaration fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand`s constitutional and legal provisions.” In particular, section 26, he said, “seems to require recognition of land rights that are legally held by other citizens, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. This ignores contemporary reality and would be impossible to implement.  Recognising in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain the common responsibility for education, of the education, education and well-being of their children in accordance with the rights of the child, the Canadian government stated that, while supporting the “spirit” of the Declaration, it contains elements “fundamentally inconsistent with Canada`s constitutional framework”, which encompasses both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section 35.
Aboriginal and contractual rights.