Document Information

Date: 1981-11-25
By: British Columbia (Legislative Assembly)
Citation: British Columbia, Legislative Assembly, Debates of the Legislative Assembly, 32nd Parl, 4th Sess, 1983 at 6630-6631.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF). [external site–British Columbia Legislative Assembly]

Oral Questions

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN CONSTITUTION

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. At the recent constitutional conference, section 34 as proposed by the federal government had widespread agreement among the provinces until the Premier intervened and totally confused the issue. Is it now the policy of the government of British Columbia to keep the phrase “existing” in section 34 rather than the original version?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps I can respond without using the incorrect information contained within the question from the member for Atlin in describing actions of myself. Perhaps the best way to respond…. If he had had this available he could more accurately have posed the question or not have had to ask it at all. I’ll read from the letter I sent to the Prime Minister on this issue. The letter proceeds:

[Page 6631]

“Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

“I have been advised by the Status Indian Tribal Council and associations of status Indian bands representing the majority of Indians in British Columbia that they now no longer oppose the aboriginal rights provision contained in the original federal constitutional resolution. I understand this is now generally the position of treaty and status Indians across the country.

“The change in the Indians’ position is very significant, insofar as it was a basis for the exclusion of that provision from the November 5, 1981, accord, and the inclusion only of present section 36, by which the subject would be addressed at a meeting between first ministers, with the participation of Indian leaders.

“Because of this, British Columbia is prepared to support reinstatement of aboriginal and treaty rights in the resolution now before the House of Commons, provided you and the provinces who are signatories to the accord concur, and provided that the process under present section 36 remains in place, with a precise definition of all aboriginal rights and the complete identification of the implications which these rights may hold for Canada and for the provinces.”

Without taking the time to read it in oral question period, I might say that we go on to establish British Columbia’s historic position, not as a condition, but as a fact. So, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the question and the premise upon which it is based are incorrect.