Document Information

Date: 1983-02-28
By: Inuit Kanatalimami Pijutigiluit Katimajiit
Citation: Federal-Provincial Meeting of Ministers on Aboriginal Constitutional Matters, Opening Remarks to the Meeting of Federal and Provincial Ministers on Aboriginal Issues (in preparation for S. 37 First Ministers’ Conference), Doc 830-126/007 (Ottawa: 28 February-1 March 1983).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

CE DOCUMENT EST EGALEMENT DISPONIBLE EN FRANCAIS

DOCUMENT: 830-126/007

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING OF MINISTERS ON
ABORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Opening Remarks to the Meeting of Federal
and Provincial Ministers on Aboriginal Issues
(in preparation for S. 37 First Ministers’
Conference)

Inuit Kanatalimami Pijutigiluit
Katimajiit

Ottawa, Ontario
February 28 &
March 1st, 1983

OPENING REMARKS TO THE MEETING OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
ON ABORIGINAL ISSUES (IN PREPARATION FOR S. 37 FIRST MINISTERS CONFERENCE)

February 28, 1983

THANK-YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN MY OPENING REMARKS
BY TALKING ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PROCESS AS
IT PERTAINS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA. AS
YOU ARE AWARE, INUIT AND THE OTHER ABORIGINAL ORGANIZATIONS WERE INVOLVED
IN THE PRE-PATRIATION PROCESS WHICH INVOLVED PRESENTATIONS TO THE
JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE AND THE CONTINUING COMMITTEE
OF MINISTERS ON THE CONSTITUTION. THAT STAGE OF THE PROCESS HAD BOTH
HIGH AND LOW POINTS. WE WERE ABLE TO CONVINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IN JANUARY OF 1981, TO INCLUDE IN ITS PATRIATION RESOLUTION A CLAUSE
RECOGNIZING AND AFFIRMING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
WITHOUT GOING INTO THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE 1980/81 SAGA, IT SHOULD
BE POINTED OUT THAT THE MISTRUST WHICH THE NATIVE GROUPS HAVE IN
GOVERNMENTS WAS NOT AIDED BY THE DROPPING OF THE ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
PROVISION, SECTION 34 AT THAT TIME, WHEN THE ACCORD BETWEEN THE PRIME
MINISTER AND THE PROVINCIAL PREMIERS WAS REACHED ON NOVEMBER 5, 1981.
AFTER A LONG AND HARD PUBLIC CAMPAIGN AND VIGOROUS POLITICAL LOBBYING
WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING THE RE-ENTRENCHMENT OF THAT SECTION,
NOW KNOWN AS SECTION 35.

WE ARE NOW INVOLVED IN A PROCESS WHICH IS GUARANTEED THROUGH
S. 37 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT. WE ARE HERE TO TELL YOU AS GOVERNMENTS
WHAT WE AS ABORIGINAL PEOPLES SEE AS BEING OUR RIGHTS AND TO DETERMINE.
HOW THESE RIGHTS SHOULD BE WRITTEN DOWN IN THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982.
IN THE PAST WE HAVE OFTEN HEARD YOUR BOMBASTIC STATEMENTS THAT “WE
DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE WANT”. IT HAS OFTEN BEEN
STATED THAT THE NATIVE PEOPLE ARE DIVERSE, HOLDING DIVERSE POINTS
OF VIEW ON ISSUES TO BE DEALT WITH BETWEEN THEM AND GOVERNMENTS.
IT HAS BEEN APPARENT THAT IN THEIR IMPORTANCE AND COMPLEXITY THE
ISSUES AT HAND ARE NOT LIKELY TO GAIN THE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF
EVERY NATIVE GROUP. HOWEVER, OUR STRENGTH IS OUR TRADITION OF
MAKING MAJOR DECISIONS BY CONCILIATION AND CONSENSUS.

I WOULD POINT OUT AT THIS JUNCTURE THAT IT IS TRUER TO
SAY THAT GOVERNMENTS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT. IT HAS TAKEN
YOU 52 YEARS TO HASH OUT A SUITABLE FOUNDATION FOR THIS COUNTRY
ALBEIT ONE IN WHICH QUEBEC AND I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THE ABORIGINAL
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT, AND
WE ARE HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT. WE APPEAL TO ALL OF YOU AROUND
THIS TABLE NOT TO ALLOW MUTUAL IMPATIENCE TO DESTROY WHAT WE ALL
KNOW OUGHT TO BE AN ACT OF CONSTRUCTION. THE TASK AT HAND IS NOTHING
LESS THAN IDENTIFYING, DEFINING AND ENTRENCHING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN
THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS, INUIT HAVE OPENLY AND
UNABASHEDLY PROMOTED WHAT WE PERCEIVE TO BE OUR RIGHTS AS ABORIGINAL
PEOPLES OF CANADA. WE HAVE NO WAVERING DOUBTS ABOUT WHAT THESE ARE.
OUR SPOKESMEN AND REPRESENTATIVES HAVE FORCEFULLY PRESENTED THESE
AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY DURING THE MEETINGS WITH THE GOVERNMENTS OF
CANADA, FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL.

IN RETURN, WE HAVE EXPECTED OPEN AND HONEST RESPONSES FROM THESE
RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS. IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT THEIR CONCERNS BE ADDRESSED
IN ORDER FOR JUSTICE TO BE DONE NOT ONLY FOR US, BUT ALSO FOR THE
OTHER PEOPLES OF CANADA WHO HAVE ADOPTED THIS LAND AS THEIR HOME AND
BIRTHRIGHT.

AT TIMES, THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN THREATENED WITH DESTRUCTIVE
MISTRUST. THE PROVINCES’ ATTITUDES WHICH TO A CERTAIN DEGREE ARE
ANTI-NATIVE HAVE SURFACED ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS AND IT HAS BEEN
FAIRLY OBVIOUS TO US AT THIS END OF THE TABLE THAT THERE HAS BEEN
A CERTAIN RELUCTANCE ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENTS INCLUDING THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES. MAINTENANCE OF THE
STATUS QUO SEEMS TO BE A PREOCCUPATION IN SOME SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY.

WE ARE CONVINCED THAT MEETINGS WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE PRIOR
TO THIS ONE HAVE NOT BEEN PROOUCTIVE TO THE MAXIMUM. THIS IS CAUSED IN
LARGE PART BY YOUR RELUCTANCE AS GOVERNMENTS TO START DEALING
SQUARELY AND SERIOUSLY WITH THE ISSUES WHICH WE HAVE PRESENTED TO
YOU IN GOOD FAITH.

WE WOULD HOPE THAT THIS MEETING CAN BE MUCH MORE PROOUCTIVE THAN
PREVIOUS MEETINGS HAVE BEEN. AFTER OUR TOUR OF MOST OF THE PROVINCIAL
CAPITALS WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS NOW HAVE
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OUR POSITIONS AND WE IN TURN HAVE A FAR
GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS. WE HOPE THAT THEY WILL
NOW BEGIN TO TREAT THE ISSUES WITH THE SAME DEGREE OF SERIOUSNESS AS
WE HAVE WITHIN OUR OWN ORGANIZATIONS. AS WE HAVE STATED PREVIOUSLY
WE ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS CONFERENCE WITH THE HOPES OF ACHIEVING
WITH DIGNITY, A PLACE IN THE CANADIAN CONFEDERATION WHICH RECOGNIZES
OUR DISTINCT POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AS IS BEFITTING
OF OUR LONG TIME OCCUPANCY OF WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS CANADA.

TO THAT END WE BELIEVE THAT THIS MEETING, THE LAST AT THE
MINISTERIAL LEVEL BEFORE THE FIRST MINISTERS MEET IN MARCH, MUST
ATTEMPT TO BRING ALL THE ISSUES INTO PERSPECTIVE AND TO TRY TO
COME UP WITH AN AGENDA WHICH IS MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE TO ALL PARTIES.
AS WE STATED IN OUR LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE WE ARE
NOT SATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE AGENDA ITEMS HAVE BEEN GROUPED
NOR WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPEARS TO
HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE AGENDA HAS BEEN MORE OR LESS FINALIZED.

IT WAS OUR BELIEF AT THE CLOSE OF THE INITIAL MINISTERIAL MEETING
THAT THIS MEETING WOULD RE-EXAMINE THE AGENDA AND AT THAT TIME THERE
WOULD BE ROOM FOR CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. ICNI DOES NOT
WANT TO COMMENCE DISCUSSIONS ON THE ONGOING PROCESS WITHOUT SOME
PRIOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR GUARANTEE THAT ISSUES OF SUBSTANCE WILL BE
DEALT WITH IN GOOD FAITH BY THE FIRST MINISTERS IN MARCH. WE ECHO
SOME OF THE WORDS OF VARIOUS PROVINCIAL DELEGATIONS WHEN WE SAY THAT
WE SHOULD TRY TO GET SOME AGREEMENT ON BROAD PRINCIPLES BEFORE TALKING
ABOUT ONGOING PROCESS. WE FEEL IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO
DISCUSS WHAT KIND OF FRAMEWORK THE ONGOING PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE, WHAT
ISSUES SHOULD BE DEALT WITH WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK AND SO FORTH, IF WE
DID NOT FIRST ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES OF PRIME CONCERN TO THE
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES.

WE WOULD THEREFORE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF FIRST DISCUSSING
PRINCIPLES, HOWEVER WE WOULD POINT OUT THAT WE DO NOT INTEND TO SIT
HERE AND WAX ELOQUENT ABOUT OUR POSITIONS FOR THE FOURTH OR FIFTH
THWE. YOU HAVE HAD OUR POSITION PAPERS NOW SINCE THE TIME OF THE
LAST MINISTERIAL MEETING AND WE WOULD WANT TO HEAR RESPONSES
AND PROPOSALS FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AT THIS MEETING. WE
UNDERSTAND ONTARIO AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE TO TABLE
DOCUMENTS ON PRINCIPLES AND WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO DISCUSS
THESE. WE ARE DISAPPOINTED THAT THESE PROPOSALS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
CIRCULATED PRIOR TO THE MEETING SO THAT WE IN TURN COULD RESPOND
TO YOUR POSITIONS, HOWEVER GOVERNMENTS CONTINUE TO HOLD THINGS
CLOSE TO THEIR CHESTS. WE HOPE THIS WILL NOT CONTINUE OVER THE NEXT
SEVERAL WEEKS. FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION OF PRINCIPLES I THINK WE SHOULD
TURN TO DISCUSSIONS ON DRAFT AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN TABLED SO
FAR AND FINALLY I THINK A THOROUGH DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA
IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME. FOLLOWING OUR MEETINGS WITH
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS WHICH WERE ALSO ATTENDED BY REPRESENTATIVES
FROM THE NATIVE COUNCIL OFCNADA AND THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS,
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE AGENDA WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED. I THINK WE CAN
COME TO A MUCH MORE CONCISE AGENDA WHICH WILL BETTER REFLECT THE
CONCERNS OF THE ABORIGINAL GROUPS HERE. IF WE CAN HAVE A PROOUCTIVE
DISCUSSION ON AGENDA HALF OF THE WORK OF THE S.37 CONFERENCE WILL HAVE
BEEN ACHIEVED.

I WILL CLOSE NOW BY STATING THAT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO
DISCUSSING THE ONGOING PROCESS IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO ASSESS
THE PITFALLS WE HAVE RUN INTO DURING THIS STAGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REFORM PROCESS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN BETTER ADDRESS THE
ISSUES OF CONCERN PAST MARCH IN ORDER TO REACH A RESOLUTION. NO ONE
HAS EVER SAID THE TASK WOULD BE EASY, HOWEVER I THINK WE CAN FIND BETTER
MEANS TO ACHIEVE ALL OF OUR ENDS. THANK-YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

*************