Saskatchewan, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings, “Proclamation Amending the Constitution of Canada”, 20th Leg, 3rd Sess, (11 November 1983)

Document Information

Date: 1983-11-30
By: Saskatchewan (Legislative Assembly)
Citation: Saskatchewan, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings, 20th Leg, 3rd Sess, 1983 at 383-401.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

The HTML Text Below Has Not Yet Been Edited

This document has not yet been edited for mistakes. Help us out by correcting the text and mailing it as a text file to Your help will make the most complete word-searchable electronic repository of documents relating to the Canadian constitution. For more information consult our Be a Contributor page.

Read the unedited text


of the

I Mislative Assembly of Saskatchewan



Published under the.
authoxity of
The ‘Honourable H-. J. Swan


9A WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1983, 2:00 p.m.

In llll Ll: :, I;

_ November 30, ‘I 983

a half ago. I believe the action we are now taking as a first priority, to build in protections for the
Indian, Inuit, and Metis people, will be a monumentous one for Canada.

On March 15 and 16 of this year, Mr. Speaker, I participated in what was truly an historic meeting
of first ministers. For the first time in Canada’s history. the Prime Minister and premiers of this
country sat down with representatives of the aboriginal people to discuss our joint concerns and
our aspirations. We are separate cultures which cannot be separated. This is our funclamentai
dilemma and our great challenge. This province will not achieve its full potential as long as any
particular segment of society is isolated from the benefits of society. I ’

My government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to ensuring that everyone -— everyone — is able to
share fully in the economic growth of the province of Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan has the largest proportion of native peoples in all of Canada. It is not possible for
use to consider ourselves a completed and harmonious society until we have found a way to let
our agricultural. industrial society co—exist riththe traditional native cultures which preceded
our arrival by many centuries. Until we find we means to co-exist that we are all searching for –
some quietly, some loudly — there will be tr isions and ill will between groups in our province.

One thing we must be able to do that is for
opportunity and the incentive to share ft
government is committed to this, and we
Indian bands at present.

ertain, Mr. Speaker. and that is to offer everyone the
ly in the economic potential of this province. My
are directing economic development assistance to

s which have grown steadily more serious over the
results of different strategies will not be evident
t. We have made a start and we are taking new
oblems which face Indians and Metis people in the

Indian and Metis people are facing probler
past century. The proper course and the
immediately, and everyone’s aware of th.
directions toward resolving long-standing r
province of Saskatchewan. «

ferred earlier. Mr. Speaker. did not address directly
;n my mind: economic development, education and
Indians. to name a few.

the aboriginal problems which are foremost
training, federal fiscal responsibility for treat

With regard to the last matter, federal respr

isibility, I wish to read into the record my comments
at the first ministers’ conference. I quote, MI I

Speaker, from the first ministers’ conference:

As we all know, the Government of Canada has special obligations, historical and

legal obligations, to the aboriginal pr
have established a relationship of m
hand, and the Government of Canaa
point, and its important to point out
alarming trend. We have all heard Ir
eroded. Over the past few years p
evidence of the federal government
especially those who happened to live

Mr. Prime Minister, formal trust oblige
simply because an individual leaves a
arguments used during the last round
federal government argued against t
and barriers. You suggested provinc
crossed such a boundary to live, work

Well, with respect, I suggest that deg

)ples. The treaties and land claim settlements
It between the aboriginal peoples on the one
a on the other. I believe that this is fair to a
hat the past decade or more has witnessed an
iian leaders describe how this trust has been
ovincial governments have seen pretty hard
withdrawing from services to status Indians.
off reserves.

ions made to a people must not cease to exist.
reserve, and i need not remind you, sir, of the
3f constitutional negotiations. At that time the
e existence of too rigid provincial boundaries
5 discriminated against those who may have
or invest.

artments of the federal government are doing

the same thing to the Indian people of Canada. Once they leave their reserves it is



All mu I Iilthlill‘ II

November 30, 1 933

claimed that they are different than those who remain Are they really different
because they are less in need or less deserving of federal support? Are they any less
Indian? ldoubt that.

Mr. Prime Minister, i believe that it is important that we accept the trust. Promises
made in the past must be kept. Commitments do not lessen because time passes:
commitments cannot be discarded unilaterally; commitments cannot be eroded.

We have heard all the legal arguments. We are fully aware that. as your lawyers put
it, the section 91 $.24}, federal power over lndian and land reserved for Indians. need
not be exercised. But this is no time for legal arguments: not when lndian students in
northern Saskatchewan are facing the closure of their schools because of the
withdrawal of federal funding; not when special programs are required forlndians.
both on and oil reserves. and for the Metis; not when Indians suffer because of
senseless jurisdictional wrangling. Canada must respect its full obligations to Indians:
otherwise the future will be merely a perpetration of the past. *

End of quote, Mr. Speaker.

l am certain, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite in this legislature share my concerns in this
regard. l want to assure this Assembly that. as my government prepares for the next first
ministers’ conference. we will continue to emphasize this point and insist that the Government
of Canada respect its obligations.

Nevertheless. I was very pleased to be a signatory to the March accord. because it not only
included some important achievements. but because it provided us with a process for the first

time, Mr. Speaker, to advance further the rights and opportunities of the aboriginal peoples.

The accord, and the resolution before this Assembly today, ensures that there will be
consultations with the aboriginal peoples before any future amendments directly affecting them
are made by the Government of Canada. This resolution is a vast improvement over what
existed previously, even though it is certainly not the consent clause desired by the aboriginal

organizations. To agree to a consent clause — in effect, a veto over future amendments -—-— .

would have given aboriginal people a power which no other Canadian orgroup of Canadians
possesses. a

The amendments provided for in the resolution will ensure protection for any modern day and
future land claims agreement. We were one of the first to accept in principle the need to include
such a clause. ‘

Finally, the amendments provide for future constitutional conferences at which we can discuss.
and hopefully resolve, the rights and the problems of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We have
the opportunity to further the important educational experience begun last March. C

it is difficult to know whether these conferences will besuccessful, Mr. Speaker. Much will
depend upon the various participants being willing to compromise in order to achieve what is
possible, even though perhaps not ideal. Much will depend upon the good will that exists. As for
the province of Saskatchewan, we will honour our commitments. We intend to participate in the
process, commit the necessary resources to the process, and, most importantly. look for positive
results from that process. C

it is in this spirit that l now present to this Assembly for passage, the Constitution Amendment
Proclamation, 7 983, in the form of a resolution. Let us hope that the unanimous passage of the

resolution by this Assembly, by all the governments of Canada, will set in motion the

constitutional process that will result in the aboriginal peoples of Canada achieving their just and
proper place in confederation. i

7 ll ‘l”llll ll!‘ “”


___:§ _



llll. lull iluililll. Ill… i.r.lril.. 1′

November 30, 1 983

it is therefore with great pleasure that I move this resolution and urge the Assembly to adopt it:

Whereas the Constitution Act. 1982, provides that an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor
General under the Great.Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the
Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as
provided for in section 38 thereof: 3

And Whereas the Constitution of Canada, reflecting the country and Canadian
Society, continues to develop and strengthen the rights and freedoms that it

And Whereas, after agradual transition of Canada from colonial status to the status
of an independent and sovereign state. Canadians have. as of April 17’. 1982. full
authority to amend their Constitution in Canada:

And W hereas historically and equitably it is fitting that the early exercise of that full
authority should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants or Canada.
the aboriginal peoples; –

Now Therefore the Legislative Assembly, of Saskatchewan resolves that His
Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation under the
Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada as follows:


3 1. Paragraph 25th) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted


”(bl any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may
be so acquired.” A

2. Section 35 of the Constitution Act. 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following
subsections: ’

“{3} For greater certainty, in subsection <1} treaty rights’ includes rights that now
exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights
referred toin subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”

3. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 35 thereof .
the following section:

”35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to
the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the
. Constitution Act, 1867, to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,

(al a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating tothe

proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first
ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and

(b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples
of Canada to participate in the discussion on that item.”

4. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 37 thereof .


I Ill‘ ll” ‘l”llll Ill’ H

.; .3 53!:



November 30, 1983
the following Part:
‘?’.~\RT lV.‘l

37.1 iii in addition to the conference convened in March ‘i983. at least two
constitutionai conrerences composed or the Prime Minister of Canada and the first
ministers or the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister or Canada, the
first within three ‘years after April 1?‘. ‘i982 and the second within rive years after that

(2) Each conference convened under subsection <7‘ shall have included in its agenda
constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the
Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives or those peoples to participate
in the discussions on those matters. P

:33 The Prime Minister or Canada shall invite eiected representatives of the
governments or the ‘rulton Territorv and the ?\’r::rth\.~ est Territories to participate in
the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference con~.~ened under
subsection ii? that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister. directly affects the Yukon
Territory and the Northwest Territories.

{4} Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to derogate from subsection 33 ‘i .


The said Act is turther amended by adding thereto, iinmediateiy attersection 3-3 thereot
the following section:

54.1 Part |V.i and this section are repealed on April 18,1987;
6. C The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

‘tn. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to “1982 shall be deemecl to include a
relererice to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.”


This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Anienclnient Prociamation. 1983.


que la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 prevoit que la Constitution du Canada peut etre
modifiée par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
autorisée par des resolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes et par des re-_
solutions des assemblées législatives clans les conditions prézvues £1 l’article 38;

que la Constitution du Canada, a l’image du pays et de la sociéte canadienne, est en
perpétuel devenir dans Yaffermissement des droits et libertés qu’elle garantit:

que les Canadiens, apres la longue evolution de leur pays cle simple colonie Z3 Etat in-
dependant et souverain, ont, depuis le ’17 avril 1982, tout pouvoir pour modifier leur
Constitution au Canada;

que l’histoire et l’équite demandent que l’une des premieres manifestations de ce
pouvoir porte sur les droits et libertés des peoples autochtones du Canada, premiers
habitants du pays. – . T

l’/\ssemblee legislative de la Saskatchewan a résolu d’autoriser Son Excellence le gouverneur ge-

néral 21 prendre, sous le grand sceau du Canada, une proclamation modifiant la Constitution du
Canada comme il suit:


iii 1*” ‘l”’!lll‘ ill‘ “




. _

ll HI. luu Ilmlillli Ill: . l“ll.’.“: v

November 30, 1 983

1. A L’aliné.*a 2’Sb) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 est abrogé et remplacé par ce qui suit:

“bl aux droits Lou libertés existants issus d’accords sur des revendications territoriales
ou ceux susceptibles d’étre ainsi acquis.” A”

2. A L’article 35 de la Loi constitutionnellede 1982 est modifié par adionction de ce qui suit:

“<33 nest entendu que sont compris parmi les droits issus cle traités, dont il est fait

mention an paragraphe (13, les droits existants issus d’accords sur des revendications

territoriales ou ceux susceptibles d’etre ainsi acquis.

(4) lndépendamment de toute autre disposition de la présente loi. les droits -— an-

cestraux ou issus de traités — visés au paragraphe (13 sont garantis également aux.

personnes des deux sexes.”
3. La meme loi est modifiée par insertion, apres l’article 35, de ce qui suit:

“3S.1 Les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux sont liés par Vengagement de prin-

_ cipe selon lequel le premier ministre du Canada, avant toute modification de la cate-
gorie 24 de l’article 9l de la Loi constitutionnelle de 186‘/‘.‘de l’article 25 de la présente
loi ou de la présente partie:

a) convoquera une conference constitutionnelle réunissant les premiers ministres
provinciaux et lui-meme et comportant a son ordre du jour la question du projet de
modification; i

b) invitera les repésentants des peuples autochtones du Canada a participer aux tra-
vaux relatifs a cette question.“ ~ 4

4. La meme loi est modifiée parinsertion, apres l’article 37, de ce qui suit:

37.1 (1) En sus de la conference convoquée en mars 1983, le premier ministre du
Canada convoque au moins deux conferences constitutionnelles réunissant les pre-
miers ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, la premiere dans les trois ans et la seconde
dans les cinq ans suivant le 1 7 avril 1982. 1

(2) Sont placées I3 l’ordre du jour de chacune des conferences visées au paragraphe
(1) les questions constitutionnelles qui intéressent directement les peuples autoch-
tones du Canada. Le premier ministre du Canada invite leurs représentants 22 partici-
per aux travaux relatifs $3 ces questions. ‘

(3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite des représentants élus des gouvernements
du territoire du Yukon et des territoires du Nord-Ouest a participer aux travaux rela-

tits 2″: toute question placée a l’ordre du jour des conferences visées au paragraphe

(1) et qui, selon lui, intéresse directement le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du

(4) Le present article n’a pas pour effet de déroger au‘ paragraphe 35(1).”


i iii r” ‘l”*llIli nr ‘*1

. ._“ ,___ ,

:.3 ._:__i__ E; 4: T

. ll III ilnu Ilullillll ml… Imiulii : 1

November 30, 1 983

5. La meme loi est modifiée par insertion, apres l’article 54, de ce qui suit:
“$4.1 La partie I.\/.1 et le present article sont abrogés le 18 avril 1987.”
6. La meme loi est modifiée par adjonction de ce qui suit:

“61. Toute mention des Lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1982 est réputée constituer
également une mention de la Proclamation de 1983 modifiant la Constitution.”

7. Titre de la présente proclamation: Proclamation de 1983 modifiant la Constitution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. DUTCHAK: — Mr. Speaker, l’m pleased to add my support to the important

resolution that’s before us here today. I fully support the comments of the Premier. The

resolution represents a, watershed in the protection and advancement of aboriginal rights, and I I

would urge all members of this House to support it.

l’m pleased to rise on this occasion and take the opportunity to setthe record straight regarding
two significant responsibilities of the federal government to the aboriginal people: first, we have
the treaty land entitlement issue; and second, the federal powers and responsibilities as set out
by the British North America Act, section 91, subsection 24 specifically.

First, the issue of land entitlement. On this point, I have formally contacted the federal Minister
of Indian Affairs on two occasions asking for clarification of the federal position on the process of
land entitlement. This is required by the Naturalkesources Transfer Agreement of 1930. l’m still
awaiting the reply. I hope that when Mr. Munro replies we will, at some point in this House, pass
a resolution on that particular matter. Let me say that Saskatchewan will respect its
constitutional and legal obligations, but we want to clarify and set the record straight on what
the federal obligations are in this area. As well, we expect the federal government to accept its
legal obligations, just as we accept ours. A

Mr. Speaker, section 91, subsection 24, of the British North America Act outlines the federal
powers and jurisdiction with respect to Indians and lands reserved for Indians. This section also

A outlines federal responsibilities concerning programs and services offered to aboriginal peoples.
This section of the BNA Act clearly states that such programs and services are under the

exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.

Our position on this issue is clear: the federal government cannot avoid its responsibilities; it
can’t avoid providing programs and services to aboriginalpeople. Having said that, I want to
reiterate and state that the Government of Saskatchewan will continue to provide essential
programs and services to all aboriginal people, as we have done in the past. We have a moral
obligation to do so. We are obligated to provide these services because these people are citizens
of Saskatchewan, and we are their provincial government.

But the federal government is also obligated to provide services and programs, and they should I
not attempt to shift the costs of these services and programs onto the provinces as they are

doing now, and as they have done, for instance, in regards to Indians who move off” of the
reserve. The Premier mentioned that area. We expect‘ the federal government to fulfil their legal
obligations in this area also, just as we are fulfilling ours.

Mr. Speaker, we have made a great deal of progress in constitutional negotiations with aboriginal
peoples. The process we began with the development of this resolution at the first ministers’


Ill‘ r‘ run; III‘



. 1:

:1‘ ml. inn ilmhllli Ill

November 30, 1 983

conference is only the first step of an ongoing process. We have held a number of meetings at
the officials’ levels to help establish an agenda for the upcoming conference of first ministers.
Ministers and aboriginal leaders have agreed to a short list of items to be discussed at the198-4
Fir~t Ministers’ Conference. Officials from governments are presently working together with
aboriginal representatives to prepare these items for the first ministers.

The next first ministers‘ conference is tentatively set for March of 1984. Beyond this next
conference. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides that there will be two further ministers’
conferences by ‘I987.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reafirm our government’s willingness to participate actively in these
ongoing discussions. While outstanding problems and differences cannot possibly be resolved in
one or two years, i am confident that after meetings that we will make significant progress over
the next few years which will benefit all Canadians. Therefore. l will support the resolution. Mr.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hearf

HON. MR. BLAKENEY: —- Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on this resolution and to state that i will be
supporting it. And i speak for members on this side of the House. some of whom will be
participating in this debate, indicating that we will be supporting the resolution.

I think it is perhaps useful to look at what the resolution says. it first clarifies what was in the
Constitution Act (1982), that act which came out of the November accord. and it makes clear
that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not take away from . . .And it previously said any
treaty rights. it now makes clear that that is meant to include settlements or agreements that
may be concluded in the future with respect to treaty land entitlements.

I suspect that would cover something like the James Bay agreement which is not in a strict sense
a treaty, but which is a settlement of a land claim. And it is meant, l believe, to say that the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. is not meant to derogate from any rights given in such

We then go on, in this resolution. essentially to clarify and add to some of the language that was
developed in protection of aboriginal claims. l hope i have made myself clear in saying that
section 25 or so was a defensive section, saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not
derogate from treaty rights.

The section 35 is an offensive section in the sense that it grants rights, and it says in effect that
existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized
and affirmed. And this says that aboriginal and treaty rights will be recognized and affirmed. and
it goes on to attempt to define who are aboriginals —— that’s Indian, Inuit, and Metis.

And the new resolution which we have before us still further clarifies it by saying that treaty
rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements, or may be so acquired.
And that is to add to what we call treaty rights, any rights which may flow from something like
the James Bay agreement. And it goes on to say further that, notwithstanding any other
provision, the treaty rights referred to are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. And
that simply clears up a potential conflict with section 28.

It then goes on to provide that before there are changes in provisions of the constitution which
affect in a. direct way native rights, there must be a conference. And these sections are listed, the
ones which will trigger a conference: section 91l24) of what l used to call the BNA Act, now
called the Constitution Act, 1967; and section 25, the one we’re dealing with here, of the
Constitution Act, 1982; and Part lV, that’s roughly section 35 and 35.1 of the Constitution Act,
1982. So it says, basically, if at any time in the future – 5, 10,15, 20 years into the future -— any

l ll!’ l”‘ ‘l”l’llll lll‘ “

:.,..=.. ..
_ .5 «.31: 3.. u:

: l V‘ ll|4’] lhllml ml fl: I 2 Ill: ll: 1

November 30, 1 983

of these sections are changed. there must be a conference at which native people will be

And then it goes on to say, with respect to trying to sort out just what we’re talking about when
we talk about aboriginal rights and treaty rights, there must be two further conferences – one
which must be held before April “l8th. 1985. and the other which must be held before April 18th.
1987. So, in the next five years. measuring from “last April of ’82. there must be two additional

This whole process, Mr. Deputy Speaker. was set in motion by a series oi federal-provincial
conferences that dealt with the constitution and which. among other things, dealt with native
rights. I refer hon. members to. a briefpresented to the special joint committee on the
constitution, that is, a special joint committee of the House or Commons and the Senate. by the
Government of Saskatchewan in 1980, entitled ”The Patriation and Amendment of the
Constitution of Canada.” It has, at page 17, a statement of Indian and native rights, and it says. in

in December, 1979. first ministers made a decision and a commitment, a decision to
place on the agenda of constitutional discussions an item entitled “Canada’s Native
Peoples and the Constitution,“ and a commitment to give Indian and native people
direct involvement in the process of constitutional review.

Following from that commitment in February, 1979. we have seen the various steps in the
furtherance of that commitment take place. We recognize the difficulty and complexity of the
subject, and then this brief goes on. on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan, to say that:

We must acknowledge the legitimate concerns of native people and we must
commit ourselves now to address these concerns in a serious way as soon as possible
after patriation. And on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan, I make that
commitment, and I urge the federal government to do likewise before proceeding
with the present resolution. ‘ a

We must ensure that what we are doing is not detrimental’ to the position of Canada’s aboriginal
peoples. I point out some difficulties in the section as it was then drafted. and we included in
Appendix K of this brief a redraft of the section which, in our judgement, strengthened the rights
of Indian and native people. That was the position in 1980. This was before any proposals for
guaranteeing treaty rights was in any resolution.

in due course, a resolution emerged from the Parliament of Canada which included some rights
for Indian people. Mr. Speaker, that resolution was the one on which the Supreme Court of
Canada passed judgement in September of 1981, and reached the conclusion that it would be
unconstitutional for the federal government to proceed with that resolution without the
consent of a majority of the provinces. I don’t state that decision with precision, but that’s
approximately the import of the Supreme Court decision.

There then followed a constitutional conference which produced what has been called the
November 5 accord, and that accord was the result of some very hard bargaining. Two groups of
Canadians lobbied hard for changes in the accord which was arrived at. These two groups were
women’s groups who did not like section 28 of the accord, and native groups who were
disappointed because section 34 of the resolution had been dropped during the course of the

discussions. Section 4 is in substantially the same terms as “section 35 which we are now
amending by this resolution. . –

Because of the discontent of these two groups, a number of things happened. When the then
attorney general, ivtr. Romanow, and I returned to Saskatchewan following that accord. I
reported to the native organizations on November 12 — both the Federation of Saskatchewan


i nr ll” ‘|”llll‘ 111’ “I

.5 ._:_.i__

November 30, 1 983

lndians. as it then styled itself, and the Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians — what had
transpired and the fact that the then section 34, now section 33, was not in the document. They
had on some ‘occasions expressed satisfaction that it was not in the document because they felt
it inadequate, and on some occasions expressed disappointment that it was not in the document
because they thought it would have been a first step. l advised them that l was disappointed
that it had been dropped from the document. that it was not by any means a decision of the
Government of Saskatchewan but had in fact been the decision made at the insistence of a
couple of governments of more right-wing persuasion, and that the federal government had
acquiesced in that decision. I asked them whether or not they wished for me topress for
inclusion of such a section, such as the present section 35, if the accord was reopened, and they
assured me that they did. They wished to have this back in the document.

The occasion for pressing for its inclusion occurred far faster than any of us would have

“contemplated. i already reported to you that women’s groups were dissatisfied with the accord

because they did not like the effect of section 28 dealing with rights of male and female persons.
and they put on a strong lobby to change that section. indeed, it was a powerful lobby. We, the
Government of Saskatchewan, had some misgivings about the wording that they suggested
because we felt it might affect affirmative actionfprograms. But we consulted with some
women’s groups and found that they were prepared to take the risks. and accordingly, we
agreed to this change. And we agreed with every change of wording put to us by the
Government of Canada in writing or by telex-.

But many other things were happening, and early in the morning of November 18, the Hon. Mr.
Chretien put forward yet another proposal by telephone and we advised him: yes, we will agree
to your change with respect to the rights of male and female persons, but only if it is part of a
package which includes rights for aboriginal peoples. And on November 18. that same day, at
3:30 in the afternoon, we sent a wire to Mr.*Chretiensaying: yes, we agree with your proposal
with respect to the rights of male and female persons, but we have given a commitment that we
will agree to no changes in the accords unless it includes a reinstatement of the then section 34.

This was not initially acceptable, and a great barrage of abuse was heaped on the Government of
Saskatchewan on the grounds that it was objecting to equal rights for male and female persons.
That was, in the event, grossly unfair and inaccurate; none the less, it happened.

We advised the federal government that our position was firm, and on Friday, two days later, the
federal government changed its position and agreed to include the native rights section in the
accord. Also on Friday, two key provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, publicly stated that they
were willing to accept the native right sections with the insertion of one word, “existing,” in the
section which had been dropped from the November accord. 3

By November 23, just five days after Saskatchewan had stated its position, all the first ministers
who had signed the November 5 agreement had accepted the position, and when the matter
went back to the House of Commons and the Senate, the native section was back in. T

We are proud of the part that the Government of Saskatchewan played in inserting into the
constitution what is now section 35, the section which we are now amending. We have no
doubt that had our position been different, that section would not be there and the debate
which we are having today would not be taking place. We would not be amending a section.

now 35, because there wouldn’t have been a section, as there was not after the accord of
November 5. .

From that document stemmed the obligation, first, to have a conference to put flesh on the
provisions of what l will now call section 35. That conference was held last March. The
Government of Saskatchewan very properly agreed to carry on the discussions with the native
people of Canada, agreed on what are essentially some clarifying and preliminary provisions

nr ‘l’-‘Hill rw W

5. 534.:

ill ilii.-i illklillli fllli

November 30, 1 983

which are contained in this resolution, and agreed in a more substantive way to pursue with the
native people of Canada and the other governments of Canada just what we mean by treaty and
aboriginal rights. And I commend the government for that stand, and I am pleased that we are
pursuing that in the hope of being able to accord to the aboriginal peoples of Canada some of
the protectionism in a constitutional way, which they feel they need in order to preservetheir
traditions and to contribute to the welfare of their people.

I want to make one technical comment and then‘ to make some more broad comments. I want to
make one technical comment in saying that as I am going through this resolution I think there
may well be a typographical error. And I refer to part IV.1, Constitutional Conferences, 37.1, and
then subsection (4) reading: ‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as to derogate from
subsection 3Sl‘l).” And I rather think that should be 35.1. I mention that only because I’ve come
across it, and I suggest that someone might check it. Leaving aside the nit-picking, I want to
address a couple of issues. i i

I would like to think that the Government of Canada and the governments of all of the provinces
are prepared to address the concerns of native people. I heard the comments of the member for
Prince _ Albert-Duck Lake and share with him a certain sense of frustration that provincial
governments feel when they are dealing with the federal government. We are aware of the
provisions of section 91 (24) of the constitution of Canada act. 1867, which provides that Indians,
and lands reserved for Indians, is a federal responsibility, and that has always meant that services
for Indians is a federal responsibility. And Indians here are not defined as Indians as defined in the
Indian Act, but whatever people meant in 1867 when they used the word .”Indians.” We know
that they meant Inuit because the courts have told us they meant Inuit. We suspect that they
mean non-status Indians. And I don’t think you can say a person is not an Indian simply because
you pass an Indian act saying he is not. I

So there is a block of Canadians of aboriginal origin . . . There are a group of people of aboriginal
origin to whom the federal government has a responsibility. The federal government says – and
this is the frustrating part —- that it’s up to them to decide whether they discharge their
responsibilityand, if they don’t want to provide health services for somebody who is their

I responsibility, then that is theirjudgement. A

Thatmay be a defensible legal position. But when the person very obviously needs hospital

services -I and they are asserting that we may need hospital services but we’re not going to
render them — that puts the ‘provincial government in a very difficult position. And we’ve been
in that position many, many times. It wasn’t always so. When the Saskatchewan Hospital
Services Plan, for example, came into effect in 1947, up until the time that the federal
government commenced sharing the cost of hospitalization back in about 1958, all costs
incurred, at least by registered Indians in the hospitals, was paid for as to 100 per cent by the
federal government. They acknowledged they had that responsibility.

But gradually, since about 1960, they have been attempting to suggest that these people were

citizens of Saskatchewan, which we readily acknowledged, but that somehow this meant that .

the Government of Saskatchewan was obligated to provide the services which were the
constitutional responsibility of the federal government under section 91(24). And anyone who
has dealt with this area has felt this frustration. It’s not only a feeling of frustration, but it puts
Indian people in a very, very difficult position. They feel that if they accept services from the
provincial government they are, over time, going to erode their right, their treaty right and their
constitutional right, to get services from the federal government. « r

That’s a sound political judgement. If you have a right which you don’t enforce over a long
period of time, it’s going to wither. And we’ve had many examples of that. I think of the Indian
Federated College here at the University of Regina, which is there to provide education for
Indian people — Indian people as described in section 91 (24). And the need is clear. The value of
this service is clear, and the reluctance of the federal government to assume any responsibility is

‘ ii I’“ ‘l”llllT III’

. .=—


a 2;

I . .I.l III iiui illaiillli lIlI.. II IL ii.

November 30, 1 983

equally clear. And this has put successive provincial governments in a very difficult position. and
it puts the Indian people in a difficult position. not knowing whether they should accept services
which they need from a provincial government and thereby erode their claim against the federal
government, or they should reject services from the provincial government and thereby deprive
themselves of services which they badly need. And that’s the position which Indian people are
in in countless cases across the range of social services. education, and health.

One other area I want to touch upon. I would hope that the Government of Saskatchewan

would pursue the matter — and I gather this is the intention of the government — of settling
treaty Indian land entitlements. We recognize. I thinlcthat that is a debt which we owe and that
we need to pay that debt. Some significant progress has been made. and I think I am proud of
the contribution made by the Government of Saskatchewan to that progress. We all
acknowledge that there are difficulties and that the debt can be paid in different ways with
unoccupied crown land or otherwise, and that whatever methods are chosen have to be
acceptable. of course to the Indian people, but to other people as well with whom the Indian
people are going to have to live. Those are understood and those difficulties are understood. But
I hope the government is attempting to surmount those difficulties and to bring to early
completion additional treaty land entitlement matters, claims by bands that they are entitled to
land under treaties.

Because I believe that this resolution is consistent with what first ministers promised native ,

people in the 1970s, it is consistent with the position that the Government of Sasl-tatchevvan has
taken under our government, and I believe under the government opposite. because it will
advance the cause’ of native people of Saskatchewan, all aboriginal people of Saskatchewan.
because it is a step forward in the process, which I believe must be expedited if we are to meet
the commitments we have made to aboriginal peoples inCanada. .I will be supporting the
motion and encouraging the Government of Saskatchewan and other governments to proceed
to put flesh on the bones of treaty and aboriginal rights and see whether or not we cannot
accord to Canadians of aboriginal origin some of the rights to which we believe they are entitled.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. YEW: —— Mr. Speaker, I enter this historic debate with a feeling of great pleasure and great
pride, not only because I stand before you as a native person, the only native member in this

Legislative Assembly, but also because I stan-d before you as a member of the New Democratic

Party. Let me explain. i-

As this historic debate takes place, we should stop and reflect on its origin. There is only one
reason why we are debating this constitutionalamendment which will strengthen the rights and
freedoms of Canada’s aboriginal people. We are able to debate this constitutional amendment
today, Mr. Speaker, because in late 1981 the New Democratic Party, the then Government of
Saskatchewan stood up for Canada’s native people and forced the entrenchment of aboriginal
and treaty rights from Canada’s constitution. We should not forget that fact.

The original constitutional accord, signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers on November
5, ‘I981, did not include a section which recognized and affirmed the-existing aboriginal and
treaty rights of Canada’s aboriginal people. The elimination of that section had been the price
that some Conservative provincial governments had demanded in exchange for their agreement
to a new constitution. And, at the time, the federal Liberal government didn’t raise a voice in
opposition to the elimination of this important section.

In the ‘days that followed, Canada’snative leaders expressed shock and dismay at the fact that
aboriginal and treaty rights were not entrenched in the new constitution. Premier Blakeney met

– with native leaders from Saskatchewan. and he gave them a commitment. He promised them
‘ that on the first opportunity he would fight. to get those rights back into the new constitution,

and he kept his word, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


III 1’” ‘l”IIlI’ II‘

.. in 2.3:

I Alli I i I. I Ililll Ill” illlJ= flillllll -uiiilllnllllllli Ni. LII lli

November 30, 1 983


A few days after the November :2 constitutional accord was signed. the federal Liberal
government asked that the agreement be reopened in order to add a section on equality rights.
Premier Blakeney of the day and the NDP Covemment of Saskatchewan said they would agree
to that change. but only if native rights were also entrenched. The position was made clear.
Deputy Speaker, in a Telex to the federal government from Saskatchewan’s Minister or
Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Roy Romanow, on November 18. 1981. I want to quote part or
Mr. Romanow’s Telex just for the record. Mr. Deputy Speaker: ‘

‘Premier Blakeney has stated that the Saskatchewan government is prepared to
accept the accord of November 5, 1981 , even though as with any compromise there

‘ were elements hewould have otherwise preferred if the accord of November 3,
1981 were to be changed in substance.

Then it is incumbent on us to consider another change of substance too. More
specifically, if the agreement is now to be reopened, and if changes to section 28 are
to be agreed to, it seems only fair to change the agreement to include section 34 for
the native peoples of Canada. To change the substance of the agreement in this way
without further considering the change to reinstate section 34 is not acceptable to us.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker. the reinstatement of section 34 dealt on native rights for aborigina
peoples of Canada. ‘

That was the position of Saskatchewan’s NDP government, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I say that it way
a courageous stand. Premier Blakeney and his government tooka lot of flak at that time to
standing up for Canada’s native people in this way. ’

People accused the Premier of trying to trade off equality rights against native rights. Nothing
nothingcould be further from the truth. The NDP government of Saskatchewan was the only
government in Canada with the courage to stand up and to say the rights of our aborigina
peoples are important and they must be entrenched in Canada’s new constitution.

The NDP government realized that this would be the only opportunity to change the
constitution in order to entrench native rights for many, many years. The NDP government ant

‘Premierfilakeney gambled, and they won. Within 48 hours every government which had signer

a November 5th constitutional accord had agreed to two changes: the one on equality rights
and the one entrenching native rights.

Because the NDP government of Saskatchewan had kept its promise to native people, native
rights were included into the new constitution. The native people of Canada owe Premie
Blakeney and his government of the day much for taking that stand on their behalf.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is correct to say that without the support of Saskatchewan’s NDP
government we would not be standing here today; we would not be standing here ant

debating yet another constitutional amendment which strengthens and clarifies aboriginal ant
treaty rights. I

As others have mentioned, the resolution before this Assembly is a constitutional amendmen
which was agreed to in March of this year at the first ministers’ conference in Ottawa. Present a
that meeting were the Prime Minister, the premiers, and Canada’s native leaders. All agreed tr
and signed the constitutional amendment now before us. I say that this is a very importan

constitutional amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

And I say this for a number of very important reasons. First, because it is the first amendment (‘C

the constitution since it was brought home to Canada from the United Kingdom on April 17
‘I982. – – I


I I I l”lI’ ‘llll “|ll‘l |l’llllI Il“”l|||ll’l”ll” ‘ ll






November 30, 1 983

As a n. tive person I find it only fitting that the first amendment of Canada’s new constitution
should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada, the aboriginal peoples.

Secondly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that this constitutional amendment is very important
because it makes it clear that both existing aboriginal and treaty rights. as well as rights yet to be
negotiated in land claims agreements and the like, are protected by Canada’s constitution. This is
an important clarification that Canada’s native leaders wanted to see included into our new
constitution. ‘

Thirdly-. Mr. Deputy Speaker. this constitutional amendment guarantees that there will be no
further changes affecting the rights and freedoms of Canada’s aboriginal people without input
from those people.

Section 4 of the constitutional amendment requires that at least two constitutional conferences
be held over the next five years to discuss the entire question of aboriginal and treaty rights and
that Canada’s native leaders participate in those conferences as equal partners. This will assure
that never again will Canada’s politicians be able to ignore or to set aside the views of native
people when they make decisions which affect the rights and freedoms of those native people.

And finally, Mr. Speaker. because of the firm and effective leadership shown by the aboriginal
people themselves — and their leadership has been widely acknowledged —- i would like to
quote from a recent book by Norman Zlotkin of thenative law program at the University of
Saskatchewan, College oi’ Law. His book is titled, Unfinished Business: Aboriginal People and
the 1 983 Constitutional Conference Talks. He says. and I quote:

Only after aboriginal groups organized an ongoing and highly visible campaign that
included an extensive domestic and international lobby representation to ,
international tribunals and litigation in the English courts, there were aboriginal and
treaty rights added to the patriation proposal in January 1981, and later reinstated in
the final constitutional package. ‘

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must have complete respect and recognition for the aboriginal

r peoples of Canada. For all those reasons, this historic constitutional amendment is an important

step forward for~ Canada’s aboriginal people, Mr. Speaker. However, it must be put in its
perspective. This constitutional amendment must be backed up by the goodwill of governments
and politicians at all levels.

it cannot take the place of meaningful economic and social programs. Constitutional

_ amendments do not fill empty stomachs. They do not provide the unemployed with jobs. They

do not replace high quality health and education services.

Constitutional amendments only set the framework of rights and freedoms within which

‘ governments and native people must operate. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Conservative

Government of Saskatchewan to move beyond the purple prose that it has used today and to
live up to the spirit as well as the letter of our new constitution.

The Conservative government must provide native Northerners with an economic development
plan which will give people jobs. hope. and dignity. The Conservative government must move
quickly to make good on the outstanding treat-y and land entitlements. The former NDP
government and native leaders in this province had agreed to a formula for making good those
outstandiingland entitlements, but your government has frozen that process. Your government
has gone back on that deal, and the treaty lndian people are still waiting for their land, land

which they are entitled to and never received under the terms of the treaties signed decades and
decades ago.

These are just some of the things that the Conservative government should be doing. Mr.

Ill ‘l”llll‘ ill”

November 30, 1 983

Speaker. These are just some of the ways in which this government could move beyond pious
platitudes and bring true meaning to the historic constitutional amendment whitth WE? are
discussing today. Mr. Speaker, I will or course be supporting the resolution before us. Tnank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hearf

MR. THOMPSON: — Thank you. Mr. Speaker. i feel honoured to enter this historic debate on
behalf of my party and on behalf of my constituents of Athabasca. Mr. Speaker. ‘W’nat we have
before us this afternoon is truly a historic resolution – historic because it proposes the first
amendment to Canada’s new constitution since that constitution was brought home from the
United Kingdom and proclaimed in April of 1982. Its interesting, Mr. Speaker. that the first
amendment to our new constitution is dealing with aboriginal rights. That of course is close to
my heart. as I have a lot of aboriginal people living in the constituency of Athabasca. and they are

all looking forward to the passage of this resolution and to what it will mean to northern

aboriginal peoples.

I think it is particularly fitting that this first constitutional amendment deals with the rights and
freedoms of Canada’snative people, for after all they were the first inhabitants of our land.

But like others in this debate, I want to emphasize that the joy we feel today with the passage of
this historic resolution must be tempered with the reality of the problems before us. The passage
of this resolution is only the beginning. It is only the putting into our constitution the means to

. the end, and not the end itself.

There is much more that needs to be done. There must be a much better understanding

between Canada’s political leaders and Canada’s native leaders. There is a long way to go before
native people can be better equipped to help themselves. That is why I caution every member in
this Assembly, particularly the government members. from thinking of this constitutional
amendment as a conclusion of anything. It is only the beginning, Mr. Speaker. ‘

Now, governments everywhere must put the meat on the bones. Theymust provide the
programs and the services and the opportunities which will make the fine phrases in this
resolution have meaning. You can’t put brown sugar on a constitutional amendment and feed it
to your kids for breakfast, Mr. Speaker. Words will not be good enough for Canada’s native

I was very impressed as l listened today and I heard the Premier speak on this motion. He talked
about goodwilI.And i think, Mr. Speaker, it’s very important to all members, all political members
of whatever political stripe, to deal with goodwill when we’re dealing with this constitutional
amendment regarding aboriginal peoples. I think the aboriginal peoples of Canada have had a
rough time over the years and I think that they deserve their proper place in our society. W hen
the Premier discussed the goodwill that was needed to achieve this, I can only say to you. Mr.
Speaker, I fully agree with this. He also talked about positive action and no disruption of services,

and I feel once again that that is very important, that all members of this legislature support that
theory and that philosophy.

I think of last year when we had the jurisdictional hassle in northern Saskatchewan regarding
treaty students attending our provincial schools, and the federal government pulling out their
funding or not paying the tuition fees for these students. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to this
legislature and to the citizens of Saskatchewan, that was a very trying time for our aboriginal
peoples and our treaty people, and it affected all other citizens of the province also, because it
was going to close down provincial schools. And I talked to many of the students and parents
that got involved in this crossfire of this constitutional hassle, and let me tell you. Mr. Speaker,
there was a lot of strain put on the students and a lot of strain put on the parents. And I sincerely
hope that we as legislators will be able to sit down and solve these problems so that these type
0‘ hassles not COl~ne’t(‘) forefront Rdillh nnrl ht?» C(\l\/thrl in Han nrnnor naannnr


I III‘ ‘I’Illl ll’

l l.liMlll l i |nl~llI III Illinl ll-mill –rnlllllllllllll II: In “ii i l

November 30, 1983

l think the same thing applies to health care. I know there has been a lot of problems with health
care, and our leader has alluded to that. the problems that we had before. I think that with
goodwill and positive action, I think that the native people will for the first time in our history,
through this constitutional amendment, have their opportunity and have their proper place in
our socretv. –

l urge the Conservative government in the spirit with which this constitutional resolution was
put forward, to take the next step, to back up these words with action. And so. Mr. Speaker. i will
of course support this resolution, but I will also continue to do everything within my power as a
member of this Assembly from northern Saskatchewan to convince this government that it must
do much more for that important region of our province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
HON. MR. LANE: – Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I join hon. members in speaking on this historic
resolution, the first resolution indicating a change to our constitution and the first resolution

introduced in both official.languages in this Assembly. A

Like other members, I take great pleasure in seeingthis resolution before the House, and I urge all

. hon. members to support it. The resolution, like the accord which the Premier signed in March,

represents a commitment on the part of Canadians to address squarely the issue of aboriginal
rights. As of today eight provinces, including Ontario. have already passed this resolution, and
therefore the Saskatchewan Assembly is not required, under section 38(‘lllbi of the Constitution
Act 1982, to pass this resolution in order to ensure that the constitutional amendments agreed to
in March will receive Royal Assent.

Nevertheless, being one of the first governments to introduce this resolution,we introduced it so
that the elected representatives of the people of Saskatchewan might demonstrate their
commitment to the process begun last year. Furthermore, I believe that the unanimous support
for this resolution would be a fittingsymbol of that commitment. O

The process leading up to this resolution was long and arduous and it has been alluded to by
various members. There is no precedent to guide us in establishing a process. Never before had
aboriginal leaders been invited to a first ministers’ conference. All we had were some very
imprecise ‘clauses in the Constitution Act of 1982. The Leader of the Opposition. better than i,
could explain what was intended when they were first included in the act.

Nevertheless, all the participants in the section 37 conference are to be commended for their
resolve. They were determined to overcome the misunderstandings and difficulties which arose
during the courseof six months of discussions. To cite one obvious example, I would like to
commend jim Sinclair, AMNSIS (Association of Metis and Non-Status Indians of Saskatchewan).
and the Metis National Council, which in spite of many frustrations demonstrated their
commitment to participate in the constitutional process. As most members know, Mr. Sinclair
and the Metis National Council had to expend considerable energy and had to take Ottawa to
court, just to gain a seatat the conference. Once there, they contributed greatly to everyone’s
understanding of the issues. in fact, on the first day of the conference, Mr. Sinclair most
succinctly outlined the major aboriginal concern, and l would like to quote, Mr. Speaker:

I want to emphasize that we are talking about partnership in this country. We want
to be partners. We. want to be participants. We don’t want to be left out. We want

to be included in every step of defining and getting ourrights entrenched in the
constitution. t

The issues are difficult ones. But we, too, want the aboriginalpeoples to be partners and
participants in Canadian life. As the Premier has already indicated, this resolution, and the


» I ! mu» ‘llll ‘Ill rrumn l“’l|l|l”l“ll’ i ll


,_:£J _

I I ll“: lII.:I

November 30, 1 983

amendmentsit permits. constitute an important first step. and we recognize it as only a first step
in dealing with those issues raised by the aboriginal groups at the conference.

One amendment will ensure protection for any modern day or future land claims agreement.

Specifically, section 2S€.bi of the Constitution Act, 1982, will be amended to read: r

Ibi any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may
be so acquired.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act. ‘I982. will have an additional subsection l3l.which will read:

{3} For greater certainty, in subsection all “treaty rights” includes rights that now
exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Iluilillli [III .. I:’lll.‘u,’ .

These clauses were ve
they signed will enjoy
by the Indians.

Section 35(4) will also
are guaranteed equally
controversy, as differe
the AFN, representing

even they agreed and 2

The resolution also inc
aboriginal peoples wi
made to certain parts

this clause is both fair 5

Finally, and perhaps in

important to the Inuit, who wanted to ensure that any new agreement
e same constitutional protection as that afforded tothe treaties signed

sure that any aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection 3Si.1i
3 male and female persons. Even this clause was subject to considerable
groups viewed the matter differently. The spokesmen for the FSI and

iaty lndians, were opposed to the inclusion of this clause. yet in the end

ned the accord.

des a consultation clause which will ensure that representatives of the
ne consulted at a first ministers’ conference before amendments are
the constitution act, 1867, and the Constitution Act of 1982. I believe
ljust. I

t important, there is an amendment providing for ongoing constitutional

discussions of those a «riginal issues left unresolved during this round. I believe that everyone
recognized how com 2x the issues were and how much work had to be done before any
agreement could be ached. Specifically, the new section 37 will allow for at least two
constitutional conferences to be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada. The first will be
held within three years of April ‘I 7, ‘I982; the second within five years of that date. Governments
and groups have, as well, agreed upon a third conference to be held within one year of March 16,
“I983. All of these are to examine constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples
of Canada.

Clearly, there is much work to be done. The Government of Saskatchewan has long commenced
its preparations, and I would like to inform this House that we will be available to any group or

g individuals concerned with these issues. By the next first ministers’ conference, I want to ensure

that our positions accurately reflect the views of Saskatchewan people, aboriginal and
non-aboriginal alike.

As the minister responsible for the constitution, I would also like to take this opportunity to give
you my initial thoughts on the next round of discussions. It is my intention at these talks to
emphasize two general policy objectives: firstly‘. promoting self-reliance among the aboriginal

peoples; and, secondly, ensuring that the Government of Canada fulfils its special obligation to
the Indian people.

Clearly, the paternalistic approach of past Canadian governments has not improved the living
conditions of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Indeed, in all probability it has helped foster the
current harsh conditions under which too many live_. Personally, I believe that we must begin to
move towards a situation where the aboriginal peoples have the means of guiding their own
future within Canada. wey will never be equals in Confederation.


I III‘ ‘I”IIIl‘ III‘ *’



; l‘l HI; Jim iluilillli llln» l‘lll:i ti.


l will also make it clear at these upcoming discussions that, whiie l support and encourage the
aboriginal goal of self-reliance and even greater seli-government, i cannot support the idea of
sovereignty. That would be both inconsistent with our existing federal system and. i believe.
unworl Government oi’Canada respect its historic obligations and commitments tothe Indian people.
The lndian people themselves insist on it, and so do we. _ –

The federal government cannot be permitted to cast off its obligations imposed upon it by the
constitution of Canada. and place upon the provinces the responsibility tor new programs.
services. and expenditures. t

This province is committed to promote the well-being of all of its citizens. The lndians of this
province have alwaysbeen. and are still. in a unique position. it would beiinconsistent with our
views on ‘promoting self-reliance to permit Ottawa to change the rules for its own advantage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the success of these future discussions will undoubtedly hinge
upon our ability to discuss all the aboriginal issues in an honourable and forthright manner, on
the willingness of all participants to avoid rhetoric and deal seriouslv with these very: important

Failure to do so will result in these discussions becoming simply another one of the man},
unsuccessful endeavours to rectify the iniustices that have taken their toll on the aboriginal way
of life. And in Saskatchewan, as well as the rest of Canada, this toll has been far too great.

We are prepared to work towards a successful conference that will avoid this outcome
Qbiectives, initially. must be reasonable and, perhaps unfortunately. also limited. Progress will be
slow, and it will be difficult. But progress there will be. This government, of which l am part. is
committed to that.‘ s . T ‘

We’ve taken the first step, Mr. Speaker. That’s all that we’ve done. We have a long, long way tc
go. l urge all members to support the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear}.

Motion agreed to on the following recorded division.


Devine Embury S Schmidt
Muller Dirks Tusa
Birkbeck Maxwell Meagher
McLeod . . Young Sander
Andrew Domotor Zazelenchuk
l-3’79 Folk Johnson
Taylor Muirhead Martens
Pickering Petersen Weiman
Hafdi’ Bacon Sutor
Vrdaren Sveinson Morin
Smith (Swift Current) Parker Blakeney
3al<€‘!’ Smith (Moose Jaw South) Thompson
Hepworth Hopfner E,-‘gel
Schoenhals Myers Lingenfelter
Duncan Rybchuk Koskie i
Cuffie Caswell Lusney
– Smdberg Ceflch Shillington

Dutchak Bourin yew


-— Nil
HON. MR.»ANDREW: —- Yes, Mr. Speaker, i am advised that tonight is a night at Agribition
when all those that have not attended from this Assembly have been extended an invitation to
attend Agribition. I would hope that all members of the House who haven’t been there will in
fact try to find their way out to Agribition tonight. It’s a great show, something that
Saskatchewan has been proud of in the past, and l’m sure will continue to be proud of in the

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would move that this House do now adjourn.

The Assembly adjourned at 4:24 p.m.

Read less

Leave a Reply