federal
and provincial
legislation
contradictions,
as well as those
Covenant,
were resolved.
in the field
of human rights,
and how such
between domestic
legislation
and the
50. In addition,
members wished to know what factors
or difficulties
had been
in particular
in respect
of the
encountered
in implementing
the Covenant,
implementation
of article
1 of the Covenant and the enjoyment of other human
rights
guaranteed
under the Covenant by persons
belonging
to vulnerable
groups
such as minorities,
aliens,
refugees,
prisoners
and aboriginal
peoples:
whether
limitations
placed on the rights
and freedoms protected
under section
1
of the Charter
were compatible
with the corresponding
restrictive
clauses
of
the Covenant;
whether
Indians
living
in the Yukon and the Northwest
Territories
had access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission
and whether
human rights
legislation
applied to them; whether
the aboriginal
self-government
proposals
being negotiated
with 161 Indian communities
in March 1990 included
the right
of such peoples to internal
self-determination,
consisting
of their
right
freely
to choose their
own domestic
and political
institutions
and form of
and to pursue their
economic,
government,
social
and cultural
development:
what the relationship
was between article
1 and article
27 of the Covenant in
so far as Canada wao concerned;
and what follow-up
action had been taken as a
result
of views adopted by the Committee under the Optional
Protocol
relating
to Canada.
51.
In his reply to the questions
raised
by members of the Committee,
the
representative
of the State party stated
that the Meech Lake Accord had not
been ratified
by the requisite
number of provinces
and that,
therefore,
the
process
of constitutional
reform was stalled.
Initiatives
to encourage
a
national
dialogue
on that fundamental
issue were, however,
currently
under
consideration.
There had been no further
progress
since the submission
of the
third
periodic
report
in the effort
to reach agreement on providing
a
constitutional
basis
for self-government
by aboriginal
groups.
The first
amendment to Canada’s new Constitution
had arisen
out of a series
of
constitutional
conferences
on aboriginal
matters,
where self-government
had
been the dominant issue.
Unfortunately,
the proposals
put forward
for
constitutional
recognition
of the right of aboriginal
self-government
within
the context
of the Canadian Federation
had not attracted
sufficient
support
to
result
in a constitutional
amendment.
The aim of the negotiations
on
self-government
by aboriginal
groups was to give them control
over events
which directly
affected
them.
The Government was, however,
not willing
to
concede full
sovereignty,
in the internationally
accepted
sense of the word,
to the aboriginal
groups,
because it feared that such a step would result
in
the breakup of the Federation.
Nevertheless,
the authorities
intended
to work
with aboriginal
people within
the existing
constitutional
framework
in order
to realize
their
aspirations
for more autonomy and control
over matters
affecting
their
lives.
52. Referring
to the respective
roles of regular
courts,
ombudsmen, the
Cnnadian Human Rights Commission
and Human Rights Tribunals
in responding
to
human rights
complaints,
the representative
emphasised
that,
under section
24
of the Charter,
the Canadian courts
had broad authority
to provide
any remedy
they considered
just and appropriate
to any persons whose rights
had been
infringed.
Pursuant
to section
32 of the Charter,
the constitutional
protection
of human rights
was restricted
to disputes
between private
parties
and the State.
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, any individual
or group
-12-