The fact that there are significant differences in how the average citizen, and a bench of Judges, see Human Rights, has been evident for a long time in most countries. Many ordinary citizens, if asked, will state that many nit-picking Human Rights issues that have been ruled on by Judges, are a load of rubbish because they do not fit into the day-to-day realities in modern society. This is because Judges do not concern themselves with reality in their deliberations and rulings. Judgements are based on points of law, many of which do not take reality and public opinion into account.

 In the case of the rights of prisoners to vote, the International Court found that disqualifying prisoners from the vote, infringed their human rights, based on the laws that are extant in the country at the present time.  Members of the public argue that in reality, many of these criminals infringed the human rights of the victims of their crimes when they robbed or assaulted or mugged, them (or whatever their crimes were), and gave up their own rights when they were found guilty of crimes against society. The law, in the form of Judges, apparently does not see this logical argument, it only sees that an individual has been disqualified from the vote.

 So it refreshing, and promising, that Members of Parliament, our representatives, see and believe in the logical argument, rather than the legal one, in this case.

 The faint rhetoric that we are beginning to hear on issues of Human Rights, minority rights, open society, etc, many of which have rendered Britain a breeding ground for extremists, is showing that many of the sometimes ridiculous bits of law that irritate the majority of average citizens, could be starting to unravel.   

“Acceptance of Diversity.” The Conference Board of Canada – Economic forecasts, public policy, and organizational performance. The Conference Board of Canada, 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2009. <http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Society/acceptance-of-diversity.aspx>.

Alexandrowicz, George, Marion Austin, Larry O’Malley, Nora Rock, Philip Sworden, Rosemary Cairns-Way, Allan  Hux, Murray Locke, George Mavraganis, Agi Mete, Patrick Monahan, Terry G. Murphy, and Laurence Olivo. Dimensions Of Law Canadian And international Law In The 21st Century. Canada: Emond Montgomery Pub, Ltd., 2004. Print.

Associated Press. “American abroad? Try traveling Canadian – Weird news- msnbc.com.” Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com. N.p., 7 Dec. 2004. Web. 10 Nov. 2009. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6666338/>.

Beaudoin, Gerald-A.. “The Constitutional Protection of Minorities in Canada.” Protection of Minorities in Federal and Regional States. N.p., 12 Sept. 1994. Web. 9 Nov. 2009. <www.venice.coe.int/docs/1994/CDL-MIN(1994)007-e.pdf>.

CTV. “CTV News | Timeline: Aboriginal standoffs in Canada.” CTV.ca | News, Shows and Sports – Watch TV Online. N.p., 21 Apr. 2006. Web. 10 Nov. 2009. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060421/aboriginal_standoffs_060421/20060421/.

“Canada and Peacekeeping – Veterans Affairs Canada.” Veterans Affairs Canada – Anciens Combattants Canada. Veterans Affairs Canada, 21 Oct. 1999. Web. 9 Nov. 2009. <http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=teach_resources/peacefact>.

“Canada is a great place to live – safe, clean and inexpensive.” Canadian Aerospace and Defence Industry. N.p., 21 Aug. 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2009. <  http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03536.html>.

Crowe, Keith. “Land Claims.” The Canadian Encyclopedia/The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2009. <  http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004498>.

“Immigration Canada, Immigrate to Canada, canadian Immigration & Visa Services.” Immigration Canada, Canadian immigration Lawyers & Employment Services, Visa Services.. Rosenblatt Associates, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2009. <http://www.immigrate.net/law/en/Canada/10ReasonsToCanada.asp>.

Ward, Olivia. “Canada near top in quality of life – thestar.com.” News, Toronto, GTA, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Canada, World, Breaking – thestar.com. N.p., 6 Oct. 2009. Web. 10 Nov. 2009. <http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/705955–canada-near-top-in-quality-of-life>.

On September 13, 2007, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNPFII 2006). UNDRIP was a declaration with two decades of hard work behind it. The first draft of UNDRIP was created by the Working Group of Indigenous Populations (WGIP) (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2008). Established in 1982, WGIP had the specific mandate of advancing “the promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous populations” (Ibid). WGIP submitted the first draft of the Declaration to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which approved it in 1993 (Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination of Minorites1993).Next, the draft was sent to the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNPFII 2006). However, here the process stalled once again, as several countries had qualms with major clauses of the draft. States were most concerned about three articles that stressed indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for the Human Rights 2008)1.

As the conflict over the Declaration’s wording continued, an inter-sessional working group was created in 1995 to generate a declaration that could be accepted by the General Assembly (Ibid). The goal of this new working group was to have the Declaration adopted by the end of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, in 2004 (UNPFII 2006). However, as the years passed and no resolution was forged, the goal date was extended to 2015, the end of the aptly named Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (Ibid). Progress quickened, and in 2006 the UN Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration (UN Human Rights Council). Finally, the Declaration was sent to the General Assembly, which adopted it by a landslide, with 144 votes in favour and only 4 against.

However, Canada was one of the four nations who voted against the Declaration (UNPFII 2006).2 Given that the Declaration is not even legally binding, opposition to it constituted an exceptionally symbolic move for the Canadian government.According to Liberal MP Anita Neville, the reason the Canadian government cited for their nay vote was that it went “against the Constitution of Canada” (Fiddler 2008). An article on the government’s Indian and Northern Affairs website claims that the Declaration contradicts and threatens to undermine both the Canadian Constitution Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2008).The Canadian Constitution Act recognizes and imparts the rights of Indigenous persons and their treaty rights; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms to all persons in Canada, both indigenous and non-indigenous (Department of Justice Canada 1982). According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, interpretations of the Declaration could support rights that are not established under the Constitution, and could also interfere with the balance of individual rights and public interest outlined in the Charter (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2008). (Ibid). In particular, the government expresses discomfort with the wording of Article 46, which it believes provides a more rigid balance of individual and collective rights than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Ibid).3

On September 12, 2007, the day before the General Assembly voted on UNDRIP, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Indian Affairs issued a joint statement explaining the government’s stance in more detail. They noted that while Canada supported the “spirit and intent” of the Declaration, it would nevertheless vote against it, not only because it was “incompatible with Canada’s constitutional framework” but also because it was incompatible with the Canadian government’s “need to balance indigenous rights to lands and resources with the rights of others” (Ibid, Strahl and Bernier 2007). The two ministers pointed to Article 26 as a stumbling block, noting that it could be used by indigenous groups to “re-open historic and present-day treaties” which the government of Canada feels have already been adequately addressed (Ibid).4 The Canadian government evidently felt that accepting the Declaration would have changed the reconciliation process between indigenous and non-indigenous persons in a negative way.

A fact sheet on the Indian and Northern Affairs website further explains that the government’s major concerns are with the Declaration’s articles on “lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent; self-government, military issues, intellectual property and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligation of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties” (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2008). The statement notes, for instance, that Article 19 could be interpreted to mean that Canada’s government could not act on general policy matters that affect not only indigenous peoples, but also non-indigenous peoples, because of the need to obtain “free, prior and informed consent” on any measures that might affect them (Strahl and Bernier 2007).5 Clearly, the Canadian government believes that by accepting the rights the Declaration grants to indigenous persons, the rights of non-indigenous persons within Canada might be compromised in some cases.

Objections to the Canadian government’s position on the Declaration have been swift, widespread, and compelling. Indigenous groups within Canada have responded with outrage. Following Canada’s vote against UNDRIP, Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, called the government’s decision “a stain on the country’s reputation” and a waste of over “20 years of consultations with Indigenous persons around the world” (Assembly of First Nations 2008). The National Chief noted that it was the Assembly of First Nations’ belief that the most effective way to address the daunting poverty problems facing indigenous peoples in Canada was to allow First Nations people more rights and responsibilities concerning their land and territories, which UNDRIP clearly established (UN Department of Public Information 2006). In a similarly disconcerted statement, the Indigenous Caucus noted that Canada’s stance on the Declaration sent the message that “indigenous peoples were not equal to all other peoples” (UN Department of Public Information 2006). Indigenous groups within the Canadian government were also dismayed. Several groups, such as Parliament’s Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, sent recommendations urging the government to vote for the Declaration prior to the vote in the General Assembly (Indigenous Peoples Caucus).

International organizations have also criticized the Canadian government for refusing to recognize and accept UNDRIP once it passed in the UN General Assembly. In a UN press conference, the spokesperson acting on behalf of numerous organizations under the International Service for Human Rights remarked that in the case of Canada, “domestic political agendas had taken precedence over the protection of human rights” (UN Department of Public Information 2006). The Canadian government also received pressure from the United Nations itself, when Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed “profound disappointment” in Canada’s stance (Ibid).6 Another highly respected international organization, Amnesty International, issued a statement noting that Canada had never before refused to accept the terms of any human rights documents the General Assembly adoptedand accompanied its statement with an open letter signed by Canadian experts, including lawyers and scholars, that claimed UNDRIP was consistent with the Canadian Constitution Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Amnesty International 2008).

Other scholars and academics also voiced great concern over Canada’s decision to vote against and refuse to uphold the Declaration. A writer for the Chicago Journal of International Law stated that the Declaration is necessary because it includes rights which are “unique to indigenous populations, which have often gone overlooked by national governments and international organizations” (Prasad 2008). Erica-Irene Daes, a human rights expert and Chairperson of WGIP, claimed that the Declaration must be adhered to “for the benefit of the states, indigenous peoples and the global community as a whole” (2008). Finally, in a rigorous case study comparing national and international protection of indigenous rights, Dr. Keri Smith, author of The State and Indigenous Movements,notes that indigenous groups across the globe advocating for rights would be no better off under Canadian laws than under their own nations’ laws (Smith 2008).7

Academics have also closely examined the wording of the Declaration itself and concluded that the Canadian government’s reasons for voting against the Declaration are unfounded. In an article exploring the legal rights granted to indigenous persons under UNDRIP, research professor Timo Koivurova concludes that the Declaration has been developed to a point where no country should feel threatened by articles on self-determination and the balance of indigenous and non-indigenous rights (2008). The author claims, for instance, that the articles on self-determination have been amended so that they can point only to internal self-determination, and thereby have little to no effect on the country as a whole (Ibid). Furthermore, Siegfried Wiessner, a professor in law specializing in intercultural human rights, notes that the sole even semi-serious claim by an indigenous group for secession in Canada occurred when the James Bay Cree Indians threatened to secede from Quebec if Quebec were to secede from Canada (2008).

Nevertheless, despite all the questioning and condemnation, the government has not changed, or even defended, its stance on UNDRIP. It’s surprising and troubling that a nation which prides itself on its human rights record has adopted this position and has maintained it in the face of widespread criticism. Since the initial statements about its position regarding UNDRIP, the government has not addressed the substantial and convincing arguments raised by international groups, national groups, and academics.

Fortunately, even without the backing of UNDRIP, indigenous persons in Canada are not completely without government support. The government has taken steps to assist indigenous peoples and groups. For instance, one of many Health Canada initiatives for indigenous persons is the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program (2008). The program’s goal is “to support First Nations and Inuit people and their communities establishing operating programs aimed at arresting and offsetting high levels of alcohol, other drugs, and substance abuse among the target population living on reserve” (Ibid). A simple search of Native initiatives on the Canadian government’s website yields compelling evidence of other governmental support of indigenous persons.

However, another simple search of Native statistics from Statistics Canada reveals the enormity of the problems still facing indigenous peoples. The year before the government voted against UNDRIP, for example, only twenty percent of indigenous people graduated from high school and seventeen percent of indigenous peoples were unemployed (compared to six percent of the general population) (Human Resources and Social Development Canada 2006). It seems obvious that the Canadian government should neglect no opportunity that could lead to bettering the lives of indigenous peoples. At the very least, the government should begin to seriously engage in discussion and debate about UNDRIP.

To vote against a declaration that an international body as prestigious as the UN hailed as the “most comprehensive statement of the rights of indigenous peoples ever developed” and then, upon its, adoption, declared to be “the clearest indication yet that the international community is committing itself to the protection of the individual and collective right of indigenous peoples” was a startling and troubling action for a country which has over 1.2 million Native Peoples within its borders, – some of the leaders of whom were actually involved in the creation of the draft of UNDRIP (UNPFII 2006 About UNPFII; Bailey 2008). Accordingly, the government needs to face the strong criticism raised against its stance, particularly the challenges to its assertion that UNDRIP could conflict with the Constitution Act and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Otherwise, it is hard not to speculate that the government may have other motives for voting against UNDRIP, which would be a further stain on Canada’s human rights record on both the domestic front and the international stage.

Bibliography

Amnesty International. 2008. “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Canada must set a positive example.” Retrieved February 10, 2009.

(http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/ip_un_declaration.php)

Assembly of First Nations. 2007. “AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine, Former Conservative Minister, Urge Support for passage of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Retrieved February 10, 2009. (http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=3728)

Bailey, Sue. “Native Population Growing.” The Canadian Press, January 15, 2008.

Retrieved February 10, 2009. (http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/

294107)

Daes, Erica-Irene. 2008. “An overview of the history of indigenous peoples: self-

determination and the United Nations.” Cambridge Review of International

Affairs, 21(1):7-26. Retrieved February 9, 2009. (http://www.informaworld.com/

smpp/section?content=a790623283&fulltext=713240928)

Department of Justice Canada. 1982. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Also

available at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/)

Fiddler, Christine. 2008. “Gov’t refuse support of UN Declaration on Indigenous rights.”

Alberta Sweetgrass, 15(6):2-2. Retrieved February 9, 2009. (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=7&sid=40793a10-7f41-4403-afec-c5deca5b05bb%40sessionmgr2)

Health Canada. 2008. “First Nations, Inuit and Aboriginal Health.” Retrieved February

10, 2009. (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/substan/_ads/nnadap_rev-

pnlaada_exam/index-eng.php)

Human Resources and Social Development Canada. 2006. “Statistics Canada.” Retrieved

February 13, 2009. (http://www.nila.ca/stats_canada_reports)

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2008. “Fact Sheet: Canada’s Position on the United

Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Retrieved February 10,

2009. (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/un-indig-rts-eng.asp)

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2008. “Canada’s Position: United Nations Draft

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples.” Retrieved February 10, 2009.

(http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/ia/pubs/ddr/ddr-eng.asp)

Indigenous Peoples Caucus. “Canada’s Parliamentary Committee supports adoption of

Declaration.” Retrieved February 9, 2009. (http://www.ipcaucus.net/Canada_

parl.html)

Koivurova, Timo. 2008. “From High Hopes to Disillusionment: Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle to (re)Gain their Rights to Self-determination.” International Journal on

Minority and Group Rights, 15(1):1. Retrieved February 6, 2009

(http://www.swetswise.com/eAccess/viewAbstract.do?articleID=36631650&titleI

D=104419)

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Working Group on

Indigenous Populations. 2008. Economic and Social Council Resolution 1982/34.

(Also available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/groups/

groups-01.htm)

Prasad, Viniyanka. 2008. “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A

Flexible Approach to Addressing the Unique Needs of Varying Populations”

(Abstract). Chicago Journal of International Law, 9:297-322. Retrieved 9 February 2009. (http://search1.scholarsportal.info/ids70/view_record.php?id=

1&recnum=0&log=from_res&SID=a79d9da137dee5f843aa399c6556f1cd&mark_id=search%3A1%3A0%2C0%2C1)

Smith, Keri. 2008. “Comparing State and International Protections of Indigenous

Peoples’ Human Rights.” American Behavioral Scientist, 51:1817-1835. Retrieved February 7, 2009 (http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/51/12/1817)

Strahl, Chuck and Bernier, Maxime. 2007. “Statement by Canada’s New Government

Regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Retrieved February 11, 2009. (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/s-d2007/2-

2936-eng.asp)

Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Sub-

Commission on Human Rights Resolution. 1993. Draft United Nations

declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples1993/46. (Also available at

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.SUB.2.RES.199

3.46.En?Opendocument)

UN Press Releases. 2004. “Secretary-General Appoints Louise Arbour of Canada High Commissioner

for Human Rights” Retrieved February 9, 2009. (http://www.un.org/News/Press

docs/2004/sga866.doc.htm)

UN Department of Public Information. News and Media Division. 2006. Press

Conference on Declaration of Indigenous People’s Rights. (Also available at http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2006/061212_Indigenous.doc.htm)

UN Human Rights Council. 2006. Human Rights Council Concludes First Session. (Also

available at http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/

13C5B111105739B5C125719F0077680D?opendocument)

UNPFII. 2006. “About UNPFII.” Retrieved February 10, 2009 (http://www.un.org/

esa/socdev/unpfii/en/history.html)

UNPFII. 2006. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Retrieved February 10, 2009 (http://un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html)

Wiessner, Siegfried. 2008. “Indigenous Sovereignty: A Reassessment in Light of the UN

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Vanderbilt Journal of

Transnational Law, 41.4:1141-1176. Retrieved February 7, 2009 < http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35388933&site=ehost-live>

1 Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right

they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social

and cultural development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the

right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local

affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct

political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right

to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural

life of the State.

2 The other three countries were Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America

3 Article 46, Part 2

2. In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human

rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected. The exercise of the rights

set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are

determined by law, and in accordance with international human rights obligations.

Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for

the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of

others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic

society.

4 Article 26

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources

which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the

lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership

or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise

acquired.

3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands,

territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to

the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples

concerned.

5 Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples

concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free,

prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or

administrative measures that may affect them.

6 Ironically, Mrs. Arbour is a former Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court (UN Press Releases 2004).

7 “It appears that the Native Hawaiians and the Zapatistas would not be better protected by Canada.”

The initial assumption in this debate, from which many subsequent arguments stemmed, was that of the nature of federalism. Unity across the Dominion of Canada was foremost in Sir John A. MacDonald’s mind when he stressed the importance of Canada “as a whole”,Were it not for this chief assumption of federalism, a Parliamentary debate over the issue of enfranchisement would not even have been necessary; provinces would have been free to decide for themselves who should vote and who should be denied that right. MacDonald’s insistence upon a federally based interpretation of Confederation, as opposed to one based upon provincial autonomy, thus opened up the franchise debate to a clash of views between provinces, especially in the case of Quebec. repeating this phrase twice in one sentence. MacDonald stressed this prevalent principle when he explained that it was “quite obvious” that there should be “as little difference between the franchise” from one part of the Dominion to another.

MPs from Quebec strongly held the opinions predominant in their own communities, representing the interests of their constituencies’ populations at the cost of party loyalty. Flavien Dupont, a Conservative, argued against female suffrage, exclaiming that it “is the upsetting of all the ideas which we of the Province of Quebec have entertained,” and thus placed local ties to his riding above Conservative loyalty to MacDonald’s pro-enfranchisement position. Michel-Charles Coursol, another Conservative from Quebec, similarly ignored party cohesion when he defended his constituency’s “principle …that no woman should vote.”  This reveals another assumption that had a major impact on the debate: party loyalty was not of any paramount importance and was indeed second to local ties, at least in the case of Quebec.

Other MPs also assumed that party unity was to be a secondary concern, easily trumped by personal beliefs. William Mulock of the Liberal Party agreed with MacDonald over the issue of female enfranchisement, stating simply “I have never been able to see why…the suffrage should not be extended to women.” His use of the first person singular, I, reveals an individualistic streak common among MPs during this debate, which caused many to disagree or agree with their own party leader’s views. In a similar display of party disloyalty, Conservative MP Charles Townshend said “I cannot give my approval” to the women’s franchise. Like Mulock, Townshend based this on his personal belief (in this case, that the franchise would be “degrading” to women). Even when MPs agreed with their own party’s position, they often did so for personal reasons and not because they believed party consistency to be a priority. Conservative MP George Foster, for example, stressed the personal aspect of his belief when he stated that “I hold as honestly as [MacDonald] does in favor of the complete enfranchisement” of property-holding women. So rampant with personal opinion and so heedless, of party lines was this House of 1885 that Liberal MP Joseph Royal was able to appeal to “the duty of every well meaning Conservative to vote” against Conservative leader MacDonald’s Bill.

Because MPs’ arguments were often affected by their personal belief sets, rather than by loyalty to party lines, it is illuminating to examine the basis of these beliefs. Not surprisingly, at the foundation of many MPs’ beliefs were several basic assumptions of Nineteenth Century liberalism. First, it was widely assumed in this debate that voters would need to be free, and, furthermore, that voting rights should be denied to those who were not free. The first part of this assumption – that voters should be free – does not seem foreign to a Canadians today. Dommick Blake stressed that “[f]reedom is essential” to the right to vote. It is difficult to conceive of any Canadian audience today strongly disagreeing with this sentiment. David Mills posited without opposition that “our free institutions rest upon the habits of self-reliance existing amongst our people.”

However, the second part of the assumption – denying voting rights to un-free people – may not appear immediately straightforward today. Whereas a current political scientist in Canada might argue that all citizens should be made as free as possible to vote unhindered, the predominant opinion 121 years ago was exactly the opposite. After stressing the necessity of freedom to the franchise, Blake went on to “maintain that under the laws as they exist [the Indian] does not occupy that position in which it is safe to give him the franchise.” Mills, similarly, suggested that “the mere framing of a free constitution, the wide extension of the franchise… will not make a free people.”

Even though there was a clear recognition that the Natives’ condition was artificial, and in fact due almost entirely to relatively recent colonial policy, the vast majority of MPs in 1885 felt no clear responsibility to change this situation. Blake, in his argument against enfranchisement of the Indians, clarified this position bluntly: “I am not asking you what you ought to make the Indian; I am asking what you have made him.” When George Foster and Simon Dawson argued against this prevailing view, both were met with considerable opposition from other members. A clear and succinct example of this opposition was evident in William Paterson’s statement that “they will have the right to vote the moment they desire to become one of us.”

It was evident from this debate that one of the requirements to “become one of us” was that of intelligence, another key assumption of Nineteenth Century liberalism. William Mulock asked, rhetorically:

What is the meaning of a franchise? Is it not the very first idea that enters one’s mind that it is an expression of free will? Does that not imply that the person who possesses that free will must be an intelligent man?

Robert Watson made use of this assumption, widely accepted in the House, to argue against the enfranchisement of Native Canadians, claiming that “a great many Indians,” were “not as intelligent” as MacDonald would have had the House believe. David Mills and John Wilson also referred to this assumption in their general assessment of a group’s right to vote. James McMullen made use of it in his argument for the enfranchisement of women. Referring to his own experience from his town, where women voted responsibly, McMullen concluded that in terms of “aptitude and intelligence [women] are quite capable of taking upon themselves the duty of recording their votes.” Even MacDonald appealed to this assumption, humorously arguing that:

It is not at all necessary to contend that women have the capacity, either mental or physical, to grasp great questions of public policy, to sit here as members of this House till four or five o’clock in the morning, listening to delightful music, and taxing their brains with great questions of State.

It seems that, regardless of which group was in question or what side the MP was on, the assumed necessity of intelligence was an important factor in this debate.

Of equal necessity to the right to enfranchisement, according to the members of the House in 1885, was that the group in question must desire the right to vote before it should be considered deserving of the privilege. James Edgar asserted that the Chinese should deserve enfranchisement only “when they ask for the rights of citizenship,” and used his denial that they had done so as one of his arguments against their enfranchisement.The same issue was equally relevant to the debate about female enfranchisement. Richard Cartwright argued that “the ladies of this country do not want the franchise,” to which Noah Shakespeare replied “I say they do.”

William Paterson put forward a similar argument against Native enfranchisement, arguing that “not only have these Indians not asked for this vote, but they do not desire it,” against which Simon Dawson attested to many Natives he knew who “commented to me on the strangeness of the fact that the white servants whom they employ could record their votes while they were deprived of that privilege.” Whether or not individual MPs believed that women, Natives, or Chinese immigrants had asked for the franchise, they agreed unanimously that this was an important factor to consider.

Confronted with Simon Dawson’s natives who had white servants, many MPs revealed yet another assumption: they insisted that “race” was a factor in their decisions not for biological reasons, but for cultural reasons instead. Because of this stipulation, arguments abounded that referred to the level of “civilization” attained by the Natives and Chinese. In favour of Chinese enfranchisement, Weldon argued that they had “attained a high state of civilisation.”

In an appeal to history, Arthur Gillmor pointed out that the Chinese “were a civilised race when your ancestors were barbarians.” In contrast, Natives, especially those in the North-West, were often referred to as “savage nomads,” “savage hordes,”and “filthy Indians,”conjuring up images of an uncivilised people that did not deserve the vote. Robert Watson argued, simply, that “the franchise should not be extended to these uncivilised people.” For much of the House, the belief that the Natives needed to be civilised before enfranchisement was so strong that that MPs wanted to take action against Native communities. John Platt declared:

I believe it is our duty to break up the tribal relations of the Indians, as far as possible, and to induce them to attain the position of free citizens, like the rest of the people of this Dominion, possessing the franchise on the same terms, and no better.

Against this prevailing opinion stood only a few dissenters, who held to a principle of representation regardless of the “civilisation” question. Simon Dawson’s avowal, for example, that “the whole Indian race, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, should have some sort of representation in this House” was, in 1885, an extremely atypical view. More common arguments in favour of Native enfranchisement, just like the arguments against it, contained references to their degree of civilisation. Dawson maintained that Natives were “not the barbarians which many people imagine,” and MacDonald argued that the Bill was designed to enfranchise “those Indians who have the ostensible evidence of property which the white man can show.” Whatever stance MPs took on Native or Chinese enfranchisement, they almost always believed that “civilisation” was a key factor that had to be considered.

When confronting such questions of civilisation, MPs often appealed to a group’s “Britishness”. Simon Dawson, for example, states that the Natives “we must admit, are British subjects.” MacDonald argued that Natives were superior to the Chinese because they were more British. In fact, in MPs’ frequent appeals to Britain, another assumption of the time comes to light: that Britain should be more or less emulated, at least as far as possible. MacDonald appealed to the “marvellous progress” England had made on the female enfranchisement issue.

Noticing that Mr. Gladstone, head of the Administration in England, was “strongly in favour” of women’s enfranchisement but did not “hazard” his franchise bill on that point, McDonald chose to follow suit.James McMullen, also in support of women’s enfranchisement, appealed to the Queen of England as an admired and loved figure who brought a certain legitimacy to the right for women to vote. Alonzo Wright even referred to inhabitants of the British Isles as the “bone of our bone and the flesh of our flesh.” For these Canadian MPs, England was always a place to look to, and, if possible, copy.

Such respect was clearly lacking in the House’s opinion of the groups that the Bill proposed to enfranchise. An implicit hierarchy was assumed, in which Whites were at the top, followed by Natives, and then the Chinese. John Platt showed clear preference for white women over Natives when expressing his disgust that the proposed Bill would refuse married women the right to vote and yet grant it to Natives on the reserves. MacDonald argued that the “Chinese are not like the Indians, sons of the soil,” and thus were even less deserving of the franchise than the Natives.

The adoption of such an implicit hierarchy by members of the House not only influenced their arguments with respect to the Natives and Chinese at the time, but can be seen as part of a late-Nineteenth Century trend moving towards concepts of racial purity and Social Darwinist ideas that were to affect the Twentieth Century profoundly.Macdonald referred to the importance of “ethnological” questions, and warned of a “mongrel race” destroying “the Aryan character of the future of British America”. Philippe Casgrain even believed it was “easy to see” that the Natives were “not a race which is capable of being civilised” due to inherent “mental faculties”.

However, in spite of these hierarchical views of race, most MPs remained adamant that they were not prejudiced against any specific group. When Peter Mitchell claimed that there were “gentlemen here who are prejudiced against the Chinamen,” he was met with outright denial from Noah Shakespeare. Some MPs did exhibit a genuine respect for Natives. Simon Dawson, for example, cited General Middleton’s experience fighting against a Native rebellion:

[O]ut of a force of 450, with all the best implements of modern warfare against them, in the hands of the best troops, before they yielded more than one-half of their whole number fell down dead or bleeding where they stood. People that can do that must surely be capable, with proper training, of higher and better things than rebellion.

It is also important to make a distinction between statements that might merely ring with a prejudiced tone today, as opposed to ones that indisputably exhibit genuine prejudice. Arthur Gillmor, for example, joked that the Chinese “have just as good a right to wear a pig tail as my hon. friend has to wear a bald head.” Though such a statement employs generalizing race-based distinctions, it was clearly intended to suggest that the Chinese should be on an equal footing with even Sir John A. MacDonald. Arguments, seeming ripe with prejudice today but apparently meant to empower these groups, were made with respect to women.

Noah Shakespeare, for example, made a generalising gender-based statement, intended to be complimentary, that “[w]omen you will always find on the side of right.” It seemed difficult in 1885 to believe that women were not greater or lesser than men, but were simply human.

These assumptions of gender difference paved the way for pronouncements about “woman’s true sphere,” a place where she belonged, separate from men and their politics. William Mulock referred to women as the “weaker sex,” inherently separate from men. Even Wilfred Laurier believed that a woman’s political influence would be more effective if exercised in the circle of the home, by persuasion and advice, than if the woman is brought to the poll to vote.” In an implicit appeal to God, Joseph Royal argued against female enfranchisement, saying that “[w]oman has been created for another kingdom.” In a humorously intended remark, Peter Mitchell illustrated the prevalent opinion that women needed to be managed:

I have found it pretty hard work to manage a woman anyway, and one of the difficulties of our lives is to know how to manage our wives. Some fellows who have not wives find it more difficult still to know how to manage those who are not their wives.

When he made this joke, Mitchell knew that it would not fall on deaf ears, that the atmosphere in the House of 1885 was one that accepted a marked political difference between women and men. It was taken for granted in the House that women had to lose their “freedom of action” as soon as they were married, and should not receive the franchise either.

Thus, key assumptions held by members of the House in 1885 defined the nature of debate regarding the enfranchisement of women, Natives, and the Chinese. Assumptions of the primacy of federalism over the provincial sphere, caused the Parliamentary debate to be necessary in the first place. Assumptions of the primacy of personal beliefs over party loyalty made for a debate fought on the basis of individual conscience and opinion. Debates were framed with reference to these beliefs and assumptions: voters had to be free, had to be intelligent, had to desire the vote, and had to be civilised in a British manner to even qualify for the franchise.

Affecting these arguments were widely-held racial and gender-based prejudices in the House, all the more significant because were denied and dismissed. Perhaps, with an understanding of these assumptions held more than 120 years ago and their profound impact upon legislative policy, we might learn today to recognise and question our own assumptions; perhaps the history of the future will not have to be as critically examined.