Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (29 June 1983)

1983-06-29 Leave a Comment

Document Information

Date: 1983-06-27
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1983 at 26944-26958.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT

FIRST SESSION—THIRTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT

32 Elizabeth II

VOLUME XXIII, 1983

COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, 1983
TO THE TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF JUNE, 1983

INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME

[Page 26944]

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROCLAMATION,
1983

MOTION TO AMEND CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

The House resumed from Monday, June 27, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan:

That:

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;

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

And Whereas, after a gradual 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 Whereas 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 of Canada, the aboriginal peoples;

Now Therefore the House of Commons 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:

PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1. Paragraph 25(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

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

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 to in 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,

(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the 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 discussions on that item.”

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

“PART IV.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES

37.1 (1) In addition to the conference convened in March 1983, at least two constitutional conferences composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first within three years after April 17, 1982 and the second within five years after that date.

(2) Each conference convened under subsection (1) 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 of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.

(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) 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 35(1).”

5. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following section:

“54.1 Part IV.1 and this section are repealed on April 18, 1987.

6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

“61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.”

7. This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, fellow Parliamentarians, the resolution before us today is the culmination of a dialogue that has been going on between the aboriginal people of Canada and political leaders since the Royal Proclamation of 1763. If that seems to overstate the significance of the resolution that calls primarily for a continuing dialogue between native leaders and First Ministers, I ask my colleagues to remember the nature of our historic relationship with Indian and Inuit people in Canada.

Before Confederation, Canadians were engaged in a purposeful search for indentity as founding members of a new order in an unfamiliar land. The preoccupations of the day involved war, survival, wilderness and disease. Challenges were met head-on and dealt with directly. All the while the promise of peace and plenty was like a powerful magnet drawing upper and lower Canadians into the twentieth century.

It was in this context and with strong momentum that Canadians faced and resolved the great issues of the day. When it came to creating a new dominion, linking its regions by rail or fashioning ties between cultures, Canadians did what I trust we will always do, the best we can do in our time.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, aboriginal peoples and the new settlers tried to find some reasonable accommodation between their various needs and the contending forces. Native people were often displaced from one part of the country to another. Treaty arrangements were struck on an as needed, ad hoc basis; some of them before Confederation, the majority after.

[Page 26945]

Indian/non-Indian relations were characterized by a whole set of special, sometimes contradictory legal arrangements. It was a complex and difficult situation, some vestiges of which linger with us to this day. Yet out of that same process came certain provisions and protections for Indian people. Two hundred and twenty years later, contemporary Indian people still recite the recognition of their uniqueness in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as a basis for new arrangements.

The Constitution Act of 1867 recognized a special relationship between Parliament and aboriginal people which they cherish to this day. Significantly this special relationship described in Section 91(24) of our first Constitution forms today an important element of the Accord signed at the close of the conference in March.

This open door to the federal Government is the basis for continuing discussions with my federal colleagues and myself in parallel with the ongoing constitutional process. Indian people have insisted on this form-of insurance based on many decades of experience.

As I suggested earlier, the most fundamental arrangements we struck in the past, those which found expression in the Royal Proclamation and the Constitution Act as it was proclaimed in the last century, still serve us well in the present.

Once again, the future rests on Canadians doing the best they can in their time, only now, we all have more experience. In the 1980s there are still other priorities. We have explored the wilderness, we have built the railways and overcome most of the diseases that plagued the pioneers. The centuries have seen these challenges replaced by others.

But something happened as a result of the March Constitutional Conference that should inspire new hope. By establishing an ongoing process of three similar First Ministers’ Conferences over the next four years, we have ensured that the concerns of the aboriginal people, Inuit and Indian, are at the top of the national agenda. That fact alone should make a world of difference to the way we proceed this time.

The focus for the special relationship has since 1867 been the Parliament of Canada. It has taken more than 100 years for the leaders of the aboriginal peoples and the elected leaders of Canada to sit down in one room together and talk openly face to face. In 115 years this has never happened. We have never responded in such a way to an agenda devised by native people. First Ministers and native leaders have never talked in a collective way across one table as common citizens of one country.

Those are but some of the reasons I feel this House must support the resolution that is before it in this debate. It is a momentous debate. When the Parliament of Canada and the provincial assemblies ratify this resolution under the Constitution, a new dialogue will begin. It will be one that is based on an attachment to this nation and all the people who live here. That is what the next three conferences will be about. With this resolution, we can begin to fashion a new sort of future.

The future will be based on how we Canadians, Inuit, Indian and non-Indian, perceive problems and possible resolutions. It begins with the Accord which ensures that native leaders will participate with the First Ministers in a constitutional conference before any amendments are made to those parts of the Constitution dealing exclusively with aboriginal peoples. This is not a formal consent clause but it gives aboriginal peoples a unique and permanent political say in constitutional change of special concern to them.

The Accord also gives past and future land claims settlements a new status and security by including them among the “treaty rights” recognized and affirmed in the Constitution. This should yield a greater incentive for early resolution of many of the outstanding land and related claims of aboriginal peoples. In addition, the Constitution will be amended to ensure that the aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed equally for men and women.

Perhaps most important of all, we have established that negotiation on a national level is the way to decide on relationships and rights. This time discussions will be based on real negotiation, not just consultation; not mediation but a process of free and open discussion among parties, each of whom has something to offer and something to gain.

The Accord was signed because all the parties, including Quebec, even if that Province did not sign, found common ground. This happened because everyone said what they thought in a spirit of respect and with a genuine desire to understand and reach an accommodation. The Accord, then, represents not only agreement on certain specifics; it is a powerful symbol of a new mode of open negotiation between aboriginal peoples and Governments. Second, it has become a sketch of where we can expect future negotiations to take us.

One of those directions is the issue of aboriginal self-government. In his opening address at the First Ministers’ Conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that issues concerning aboriginal government are “the heart of the matter, the crux of our efforts to improve the conditions of aboriginal peoples”. He also said that between the unacceptable extremes of assimilation or absolute sovereignty, there is a broad range of negotiable possibilities that could yield various forms of self-government.

I myself see this in my role as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a daily basis. Between the extremes, most native groups are struggling to hammer out a form of local control based on economic and cultural independence. I see this on the level of social services where in Manitoba, New Brunswick and Alberta band councils are assuming control of child welfare. In these Provinces bands will receive child welfare services equal to those offered to other citizens in their respective Provinces for the first time.

I see this on the level of economic development where band councils are coming forward now and saying that they want the means with which to become economically self-sufficient. They are saying that they want the means with which to reduce welfare rolls. This involves difficult new bilateral and tripartite negotiations. But the difference between the old and

[Page 26946]

the new is clear. Indians are moving toward controlling their economic destinies instead of being controlled.

I see the struggle for control of individual destinies on the level of Indian policing and education. The strength and independence of the Indian and Inuit cultural movement is also reflected at the grass roots level. This resolution, by the way, acknowledges the cultural distinctiveness and diversity of Canada’s aboriginal peoples. It demonstrates an awareness that aboriginal lifestyles, languages and customs must be protected.

The Constitution is the focus of Parliament’s attention today, as well it should be for it is also the focus of Indian and Inuit aspirations throughout the country. Those aspirations depend on more than success at the constitutional table, important as that is. I have tried here to outline some of the dimensions of those aspirations that I see in my role as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the long run, if we continue to succeed it will mean a new type of Indian legislation rather than the Indian Act.

I do not propose to speculate here exactly how the Act will be changed, but if native communities in Canada are to move forward with new, effective powers to plan, initiate and deliver programs responsive to their needs, then some of the old relationships simply must change.

This is one dimension of the problem that constitutional conferences and native national organizations will have to struggle with in the near future. That will be a challenge every bit as difficult as the one we have just been through. I trust that the Special Committee on Indian Self-government will be a key resource in helping us arrive at some answers that will effect the kind of changes we will want to see happen in the near future. I trust this Committee, established in a climate of non-partisan agreement and with unprecedented latitude in its terms of reference, will be a major asset in our search for solutions.

Another important direction I can see negotiations taking in the future is the involvement of the Provinces and the Territorial Governments. The constitutional discussions introduce for the first time in a formal and fundamental way other Canadian leaders to the developing relations between aboriginal peoples and Government.

While the federal Government will always have a special relationship with Indian and Inuit people, it had become clear that the Provinces and Territories should join in the debate. Now they have. This is a key element in maintaining the momentum towards reforming the system that we presently have, for we are at a crucial period in the development of Canadian native communities. Never has the opportunity for innovative reform been so propitious. This is the message that I have been carrying to Indian and Inuit leaders in my capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have the spirit for constructive change coming from so many different directions—from native communities, from native national and regional organizations and from Parliament.

If you remember, Mr. Speaker, when I asked Parliament on August 4, 1982 to create the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, there was all-Party agreement. This is not a phenomenon we see every day. I believe the same non-partisan spirit is here today. I believe we will find new, workable relationships between Canadian native people and the Canadian Government. The first step toward that new relationship is to ratify the Accord agreed upon at the First Ministers’ Conference. I ask the House to do that today.

As evidence of the spirit of non-partisanship. I met today with my colleagues in the Official Opposition who are on the Indian Affairs Committee. Last night I met with Members of the New Democratic Party who are very much concerned with aboriginal affairs. This is evidence of a new spirit of non-partisanship designed to achieve the aspirations of the aboriginal people in Canada.

We are on the threshold of a new opportunity to act like Canadians in the face of yet another challenge—that is, to do the best we can for our time. We have experience, we have commitment, we have a workable process, and we have for once accorded aboriginal peoples the priority required to make a real difference to their circumstances. Opportunities like the one before us today arise only occasionally in the lives of men and women. Let us join together to make the best of it.

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). The other day when the resolution first came to the House, as I am sure he will have read in Hansard, there was very warm support for the changes to our Constitution through this resolution. This support was voiced particularly by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). That indicated the degree of support the Progressive Conservative Party has given to the measures before the House in this resolution. The changes, though” limited in scope, are welcome.

I have a particular interest in this subject. When I first came to the House of Commons in 1972, I was appointed this Party’s critic for Indian affairs and northern development. It was in that position of responsibility that I had the privilege on April 11, 1973, of raising the matter of aboriginal debate in this House. I just want to read a few comments that I made at that time. They say something about the approach of people in this House to the vast question of aboriginal rights. At page 3207 of Hansard for April 11, 1973, these words are recorded:

The subject we are discussing today deals with the concept of aboriginal title. Today, Mr. Speaker, is the first time this vital matter has been debated in the House; the first time in over 100 years that it has received the attention and consideration of the House as a whole. Why is this? Is it because it was not considered of significance and importance in our earlier history? No, indeed. It is because this is the first time a government has failed to recognize the concept of aboriginal rights and has rejected the concept outright.

Previous governments may have failed to fulfil their obligations to the hundreds of thousands of Indian people, but they never questioned the principle. Not until 1969, following the introduction of the government’s white paper on

[Page 26947]

Indian policy when the minister stated that aboriginal claims to land were not realistic, was a Prime Minister of this country to say of this question, and I quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): Our answer, it may not be the right one and may not be the one which is accepted . . . our answer is no.

That was what triggered the debate at that time. There was a rejection of the concept of aboriginal title. We have come a long way since that day. We have come a long way since that debate and much has been accomplished. The perseverance and determination which has been characteristic of the native peoples of this country throughout their history have once again proven to be the major instrument in bringing about much needed reform. Nowhere was that more evident than in the Conference of First Ministers and native leaders which took place in March this year. The country was able to see how our native people conducted themselves in negotiations of such a critical nature.

As others have said, this is only a beginning; much remains to be done. I hope the conferences in the years ahead which are being provided for in this resolution will fulfil the expectations of our native peoples which have been there since time immemorial.

There is one aspect of this resolution which is of particular importance to me. Section 2, subsection (4) reads as follows:

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

That is a big step forward. Some of us in the House have been fighting for the removal of Section 12(1)(b) from the Indian Act for a good many years. It calls for the discriminatory aspect that when a woman of Indian status or Indian background marries a non-Indian, she immediately loses her Indian status and so do any children of that marriage. I have a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons at the present time which would bring about the complete removal of Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. The former Government headed by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) undertook to do away with that discriminatory section. I presume that once this amendment to the Constitution is enacted, those who now claim Indian, Métis or Inuit status will be treated equally, whether male or female. That is, those people presently covered by the status of Indian, Métis or Inuit.

I have a concern which does not seem to be addressed in the discussions that have been going on and certainly it was not addressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) or by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this debate. It has not been included in any resolution or legislation to date. It is that those who suffered loss of status in the past, as a result of the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act, are still without status. They are outside the pale. They are still non-people as far as the Indian Act is concerned. They are not entitled to claim their share of aboriginal title. They are not entitled to take their place as Indians in any Indian society, either for themselves or for their children. There are many, many people in this category in Canada today. The names of some of those who have lost their Indian status are almost household words, Sir. Jeanette Lavell took her case all the way through to the Supreme Court of Canada and was still denied justice. Sandra Lovelace of the Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick lost her Indian status in 1970 when she married a non-Indian. Since she knew that the Supreme Court would probably treat her case and render a judgment on her fate in the same way that it had decided upon the fate of Jeanette Lavell, she took another route to try to seek justice. She went to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. She appealed to it in saying that her human rights had been denied. Her case is upheld.

In September, 1981, the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations told Canada that it should clean up its act. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised at that time that that would be done within a year.

Another case which is very well known is that of Mary Two-Axe Early. A number of us have had occasion to speak to Mary, have listened to her case, have seen her battle over the years for the rights -of those women who are denied Indian status. She is a person who has battled long and diligently, not just for her own rights, but for those of all Indian women and children who are denied their rightful status as Indians. Mary told me in one conversation which I had with her some time ago, “It is easier for a dog to be buried on the Caughnawaga Reserve, my Reserve, than it is for me, a full-blooded Indian, who has been stripped of my rights.” She is denied burial there. A dog is not.

Those are three cases: Jeanette Lavell, Sandra Lovelace and Mary Two-Axe Early. Their cases are known far and wide and they have been cited often. However, if you look at the number of cases elsewhere in the country, Mr. Speaker, you would find, going back in the records, that it is estimated that since 1920 a total of approximately 15,000 women have lost their status following marriage to a non-Indian. That is an estimate. Since 1965, the Indian Registry has recorded the number of women who have lost their status as a result of marriage to a non-Indian, and I have those figures. I believe in fact they have been produced by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The number of women who have lost their status as a result of Section 12(1)(b) “marriage to a non-Indian”, since 1965, comes to approximately 8,000. The estimated number of children born to Indian women who lost their status because of marrying non-Indian men is, ‘according to the figures I have before me, 37,700.

There are other women and children who have lost their Indian status not because of Section 12(1)(b) “marriage to a non-Indian”, but because the Indian husband and father in each case voluntarily chose to give up his Indian status. As a result, the mother and the children automatically lost their status as well. These injustices are permitted to continue in our society. They are permitted to continue today and we hear nothing about rectifying them in the future. Until they are corrected, we cannot say that the Canadian Charter of Rights is being honoured either in spirit or in practice.

[Page 26948]

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, when he was speaking, made reference to the Subcommittee on Indian Self-Government which had been established, and the very fine work which had been done by that subcommittee. He neglected to mention that there was another subcommittee which also had been in operation at the same time, and which had done equally fine work. That was the Subcommitee on Indian Woman and the Indian Act. That subcommittee unanimously made four recommendations, four themes, in their report. They recommended, first, the removal of all discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act, but not so as to remove Indian status from those who gained it on marriage; second, the reinstatement of all Indian women who lost their status on marriage, and their first-generation children. That is a very critical and key recommendation, a unanimous recommendation, of that all-Party subcommittee, to reinstate Indian women who lost their status on marriage and their first-generation children. Third, they recommended that there be no future gain or loss of Indian status, or loss of rights such as band membership on marriage; and fourth, Band control of membership.

I make mention of that report, Mr. Speaker, because it is critical that the Government respond to the report of that subcommittee. That is surely the action which should now ensue from the subcommittee report. Back on July 7, 1980, in response to a question which I raised in the House of Commons directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he said that he hoped that this matter, that is, the loss of status which had already taken place, would be rectified within one or two years at the most. That one or two years has now passed, and nothing has been done for the women and the children whose rights lie outside the scope of today’s resolution.

As we know, there is no retroactivity to the resolution before us. In November, 1981, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women said that she hoped that the necessary steps to redress the situation would take no more than a year to pass. That year has come and gone. Still no action has been taken to deal with the plight of Sandra Lovelace, Mary Two-Axe Early or Jeanette Lavel, or the thousands of other women in circumstances similar to theirs. The Government will be compelled to address this problem once Section 15 of the Charter of Rights becomes fully operative in 1985. However, why not show its good intentions now by taking immediate action rather than risk being dragged into the courts, kicking and screaming, when that three-year grace period elapses?

I know, Mr. Speaker, there will always be argument, and I know there will be reluctance on the part of some to face up to this matter squarely. However, the problem, Sir, is not going to go away and it is not going to become any less acute just because it is being ignored. In passing this resolution, Mr. Speaker, let us resolve that the unfinished business of those individuals who continue to be denied their rightful place, their rightful Indian status, is dealt with and dealt with justly and fairly once and for all.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin): Order. Questions, comments? Debate.

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak for my Party with regard to the motion which is before us to amend the Canadian Constitution. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) said on Monday when the motion was introduced, our Party supports the Accord, but we have many concerns about it. When we look at the Accord we see it as a minimal achievement. However, it is an achievement and, therefore, we are supporting it.

In the few minutes I have this afternoon I-would like to address the substance of the Accord and then look at the process for future debate. There are several minor improvements which tidy up the language concerning treaty rights and agreements. As the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has mentioned, there is the clause guaranteeing aboriginal rights equally to males and females. That clause is extremely important to all Members of our Party because all of us are very much aware of the pain and suffering caused by the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act, in particular Section 12(1)(b).

That can be looked at in several ways. First there are those women who lost their status because they married a non-Indian. Then there are their children. There are those women who might have wished to marry a non-Indian person but because they did not wish to lose their status, they gave up the relationship and suffered thereby. There are those women who do not want to give up a relationship and lose their status so they live common law, and they continue to suffer along with their children from whatever social stigma still attaches to that situation. So we see that Indian women have suffered in countless ways.

In addition, Indian women, families and communities have suffered from the division this Section has brought. We believe it is important to recognize that the major source of this discrimination has been non-Indian legislation imposed on the Indian people without consent. Indeed, in many cases it was against their expressed opposition.

The Indian Act reflects a patriarchal, Victorian attitude in both its colonialist assumptions and its racist and sexist assumptions. It is interesting that in the testimony presented before the special joint committee of 1946, 1947 and 1948 which was looking at the revision of the Indian Act, representatives of the Department indicated that one of the reasons for this kind of provision was that they wanted to reduce the number of Indian people. That would lower the federal Government’s financial responsibility to them. You can compare Section 12(1)(b) with some of the earlier Sections of the Indian Act which automatically disenfranchised any Indian person who went to university or became a lawyer or clergyman. The whole attitude of the Government was to get as many people away from Indian status as possible, because it was regarded as an inferior status, which Indian people themselves rejected, but mainly because of the financial implications.

[Page 26949]

Today, as never before, Indian people are asserting the importance of their status and they want it maintained. Indian women have the right to maintain their status regardless of their marital status, and I would urge the Minister to bring in legislation as soon as possible to deal with the recommendations brought out in the subcommittee’s report on Indian women in the Indian Act. When the Minister appeared before the second subcommittee in December he promised he would bring in that legislation with considerable haste. Seven months have gone by since then and we still have not seen the legislation. I remind the Minister, the Government and the House that it is important that this legislation be tabled so that Indian leaders and groups as well as Members of Parliament can study it and make respresentations. It is a very complex subject, it is not going to be dealt with on a Friday afternoon by all Party agreement, so it is important to do it right when we do it.

I regret that some misunderstandings surrounding the equality clause when it was introduced have arisen. Many of the groups representing the aboriginal people thought the wording in the final Accord was not the wording to which they originally agreed. It is important to note the basis for this understanding is Section 35(1), which talks about existing aboriginal and treaty rights. It is that word “existing” which limits the equality clause, just as it limits the whole application of aboriginal and treaty rights. It is the word “existing” which causes Indian, Inuit and Métis people to feel very uneasy about the real intentions of this Government.

A third issue dealt with in this Accord involves an invitation to the aboriginal people to a constitutional conference to discuss any proposed amendment which would affect their aboriginal and treaty rights. This is a first and welcome step but it is a long way from proper provision for the aboriginal people to enable them to defend their rights against any attempted tampering by the federal and provincial Governments. It is important to recognize that we have in our Constitution Section 43 which protects the rights of the Provinces. An individual Province affected by constitutional change has the right to veto the change. If an aboriginal right exists and our Constitution says that it does, well, then it has to be basic to our Constitution. It should not be subject to the whim or even the determined policy of the federal and provincial Governments even if they all act in concert. If aboriginal rights exist, and we believe they do, then the aboriginal people should have the final say about those rights, and it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that our Party strongly supports the idea of a consent clause.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as to substance, there is provision for an ongoing process through a series of First Ministers’ Conferences which will continue to work at the agenda set before the First Ministers by the aboriginal peoples. These ongoing conferences are necessary. Indeed, this is one of the major reasons why our Party is supporting the Accord. Most of the agenda items which the Indian, Inuit and Métis people laid on the table last year continue to be outstanding. No progress has really been made in defining the rights of Indian people with respect to aboriginal title or treaty rights or Indian Government. Their hunting and fishing rights continue to be under threat from provincial Governments and courts. So it is essential that we begin to make progress toward a, further definition, clarification and entrenchment of these peoples’ rights.

In connection with the future conferences, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few suggestions regarding process. These suggestions come out of the hearings the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development held with respect to this motion when the different aboriginal groups appeared before us. First of all, I think it is important to recognize the need for a bilateral process. Indian people have always been very proud of the fact that their relationship is with the federal Government, not with the Provinces. This is enshrined in Section 91(24) of our Constitution. To involve the Provinces has, in fact, been a divisive factor. It can be pointed out that there are some 70,000 Indian people who were not represented at the First Minister’s Conference in March. They were not represented because they did not want to appear at a forum in which there was provincial involvement. They felt that their relationship was with the federal Government and they want that basic relationship to continue.

We are dealing with a situation, whether we like it or not and whether the Indian people like it or not, in which the provincial Governments are involved. However, the suggestion has been made that there should be a series of bilateral meetings between the federal Government and the Indian people to draft some very clear proposals. Once basic agreement has been reached between the federal Government and the Indian people, then the federal Government can take it to the Provinces and to the First Ministers’ Conferences for ratification. However, I think it is important, if we want to see progress on these agenda items, that there be a move toward a bilateral process. In conjunction with that thought, it is important that we recognize that Indian people, Metis people and Inuit people are all separate peoples. They have separate concerns and needs. They have separate agendas that they want to see addressed at these First Ministers’ Conferences. Therefore, it is important that in the preliminary discussions there be separate tracks for each of these peoples instead of trying to bring them all together and persuading them to compromise and agree to some common agenda which, very often, leaves out some items of importance.

I regret that the Government has not moved more in recognition of the role of the Native Women’s Association of Canada so that it can have some direct input at the First Ministers’ Conference instead of requiring it to deal through the other national organizations.

It is important that Indian political leaders, in preparation for future conferences, be able to deal at the political level and not be relegated to dealing with bureaucrats, because what we are dealing with here is policy, and it is important that politicians who are able to speak for the Government be involved in

[Page 26950]

making decisions and reaching basic agreements with the aboriginal peoples’ politicians.

With regard to process, it must be increasingly recognized that there is a very complicated process, that there are numerous stages of discussions and reporting back to parent bodies and to constituencies. If the aboriginal peoples’ organizations are to be enabled to do a proper job, they will have to receive adequate funding, more than just enough to come to a First Ministers’ Conference once a year. They will have to have the kind of funding that enables them to report back to their own constituencies and allows for the kind of consultative process throughout their own constituencies that is so necessary.

At some of the preliminary meetings that were held last year, it seemed as though the federal Government was mainly interest in smoking out the position of the aboriginal groups that were there. It is important that the federal Government declare its position in some detail so that these people will know what they are up against. There must be a two-way process of laying cards on the table so that people know what is involved. The federal Government expects the aboriginal groups to be up front with their positions. It is only legitimate that they should be able to expect the federal Government to do the same.

Finally, we have taken, in the accord, a small first step, but we have a long way to go. We support that first step, but we urge the Government to get on with the long journey toward proper recognition of aboriginal rights.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Translation]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROCLAMATION,
1983

MOTION TO AMEND CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. MacGuigan:

That:

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

PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1. Paragraph 25(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

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

2. Section 135 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (I) “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 to in 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,

(a) a constitutional conference. that includes in its agenda an item relating to the 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 discussions on that item.”

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

[Page 26951]

“PART IV.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES

(2) Each conference convened under subsection (1) 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 of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed so .as to derogate from subsection 35(1).”

5. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following section:

“54.1 Part IV.1 and this section are repealed on April 18, 1987.

6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

“61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.”

7. This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.

Mr. André Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate on an amendment to the Canadian Constitution which concerns the first people who settled in this country. I think that today, on June 29, 1983, we are truly making history. This is the first time, since the Canadian Constitution was adopted, that Parliament is proposing amendments. The nature of this motion proves that the Canadian Government is extremely aware of the issue and that it will do everything in its power to ensure that in the coming months and years, the genuine aspirations of native peoples will now be discussed on equal terms.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Manicouagan, a riding that has a large population of native peoples, including Montagnais, Naskapi and also the Inuit on Ungava Bay, I am proud to be able to stand up in the House and express my support for the motion moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). Often when we talk about native peoples, it seems almost like an abstract concept, although we know they are there across the country. However, anyone who has been in close contact with these people realizes how great their contribution is to Canada’s culture, and when we talk about the founding peoples in referring to the English and the French, we must never forget that the first people who populated this country are the native peoples. Today, by amending the Constitution in order to start major negotiations with the native peoples, with the provinces and with the federal Government we are proving that the debate on the Constitution in 1982 was not a mass of meaningless words and that it is now becoming a reality that will make it possible for native peoples to truly participate in the affairs of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the nine provinces who have already agreed to sit down with the native peoples and the Canadian Government, in order to amend their own provincial legislation so as to embody therein various amendments regarding native peoples which the Canadian Government wishes to include in the Constitution. I hope that the Province of Quebec, which has not yet agreed to negotiate with the Canadian Government and with the native peoples will do so in the near future, because the issue here is to establish clearly the rights of native men and women. I therefore call once again on the Province of Quebec to sit down as soon as possible with the nine other provinces and the Canadian Government, so that at last our native peoples will be able to live on equal terms with all Canadians, whatever their origin may be. This is a fundamental principle.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what should be emphasized today is the fact that the Constitutional Conferences that will be starting shortly will now be held on a truly legal basis. Before, native peoples were practically obliged to negotiate from scratch every time, on the basis of ancestral treaty rights or rights acquired through various pieces of legislation adopted since 1931, while now, through the Constitution, the Canadian Government and the native peoples will be negotiating on equal terms. It is truly a new beginning for these people who had to work extremely hard to obtain recognition of their status and their rights. Often, legal distinctions have been made regarding the nature of a treaty, compared with an Act or the rules of custom, and often the legal experts, and here perhaps I might point out what the Department’ of Justice has done at the federal level to bring about the entrenchment of all these rights but, before, tradition was more “or less ignored. The usual comment was: Listen, it is not a statute, and it is not something that is recognized by the statutes. With the various constitutional conferences, what used to be called traditions or vested interests will now become a daily reality well supported in our statutes, and that is the important thing because we were too inclined in the past to leave the matter open without ensuring that native rights were truly recognized in legislative, legal and judicial terms. The resolution introduced by the Minister of Justice will now allow us to do so.

As I said earlier, I am especially happy to support this resolution because it is the first time that the Constitution approved by the House of Commons is amended, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice on being first to propose an amendment. It could have been amended in other areas, but the change was made directly for the benefit of our native people, and in this regard, the concern of the Minister of Justice for human rights, which are at the very root of our Constitution, should be singled out. I therefore believe that both sides of the House should congratulate the Minister of

[Page 26952]

Justice on amending the Constitution in favour of our native people at an early opportunity.

Another point that I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is the importance of updating quickly the rights of the native people. I say this because in my own area, Manicouagan, which borders on both Labrador and Quebec, for strictly provincial reasons, the right to hunt, fish and trap of Quebec Indians on Labrador territory has been restricted if not withdrawn completely, and I had to contact the Newfoundland Premier several times to ensure that Quebec Indians have the same rights in Newfoundland-owned Labrador. When a caribou wanders about Labrador or Quebec, it is still the same caribou, but we, the white men, have passed laws which allow the Indians to hunt this caribou in Quebec, but not on Newfoundland territory, and the same applies in various provinces. Where the Inuit live, there are a number of conflicting laws which prevent the Inuit and other native people from following their traditional way of life. This situation is due to conflicting statutes and regulations which restrict the daily activities of the native people.

When I say that the provinces, the Indians and the Inuit have to sit down with the Federal Government in the near future, it is because the native people must be allowed to live as they have always done. We often forget to mention the significant contribution of these people to Canada. To acknowledge that fact, Mr. Speaker, you really have to live in areas where there are native people. When reference is made to native people in this House, the city dwellers often come to mind, but most of them live in northern Quebec and Canada and in frontier areas. They are the first guardians of the country. They are the ones who allowed French, British and Canadian explorers to travel across our country safely, because they know it like the back of their hands. These exceptional guides have enabled our oil and gold mining companies to make important discoveries for the economy of Canada, but this fact is rarely mentioned.

However, the amount of tax dollars spent by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is often mentioned. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all the native people will claim at future constitutional meetings is the right to self-government and to economic self-sufficiency so that they will no longer be dependent on the central government. Mr. Speaker, native people are asking for equal rights, of course, but they also want an opportunity to develop within this country without losing their identity. We should keep in mind that equal rights and equal legal entity does not in any way wipe out the identity of an ethnic group. Native people do not claim to be better than Canadians generally, they are not concerned about being treated as inferior human beings as they have been in the past, but they certainly want to be part of the day-to-day economic activities and thus give their younger generations a chance to prosper with the country without forever depending on Government laws and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the best way to sum up the initiative taken last Monday by the Minister of Justice would be to say that we are aiming at the eventual disappearance of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that, once and for all, native people will bet full-fledged citizens like the rest of us with their own brand of Government to take matters in their own hands. Essentially, that is the take over which the Minister of Justice was advocating last Monday when he introduced amendments to the Canadian Constitution. I think that is wonderful.

In certain regions already, and I have in mind my friend Charlie Makiuk of Fort Chimo, or Joseph Guanish of the Schefferville area, the Naskapi chief, those people are pressing ever harder to be free on their own territories and to develop them as they see fit, with due respect for the rights of white people and other Canadians. They want to spur their economic activity and give a chance to their future generations to go on living as free and prosperous men and women. That is what the native people are asking for and that is indeed what the Minister of Justice paves the way for by introducing amendments to our constitutional resolution of 1982.

That was the second point, Mr. Speaker, namely to make sure that we will have more constitutional conferences to bring current laws and regulations up to date to give native people an opportunity to develop and manage their own affairs.

My third point, Mr. Speaker, has to do with information. Native people need to have more information and more training if they are to be looking after themselves. In that respect, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is to be commended for what it has accomplished over the past twenty years or so, but a lot of ground remains to be covered when it comes to information and training.

Anyone attending the various House committee sittings where Indian affairs are dealt with can see for himself that an increasing number of native people have become experts in many fields and that they are now quite capable of assuming administrative, social and civil responsibilities on behalf of their own people. We have seen it again in the Fort Chimo area since the signing of the James Bay Agreement. The Makivik corporation which has replaced the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is now managing the assets granted under the James Bay Agreement.

In the Ungava Bay area, Air Inuit is now operated by the Inuit themselves. It is now necessary, Mr. Speaker, during the various constitutional conferences that we make sure that training and information are not only available but that means are taken to enable the young people, because there is not such a large native community and it is essential that a greater number of young people attend our schools, colleges and universities in order that these leaders may be in a position to engage in discussions on the same footing as their countrymen.

[Page 26953]

That is most important because even, if we have bills of any constitutional resolution entrenching those rights, it is essential that such rights be defined, considered and upheld by the native people themselves with the same degree of learning as those around them.

When we look at the negotiations carried on with the Indians, either the Montagnais, Naskapis or Dénés we cannot but see their cohort of white lawyers. And often when we have discussions directly with the first inhabitants of this country, we realize that finally their demands are quite simple but everything is tremendously complicated in the legal system with which we deal. I am not sure that those lawyers, either men or women, seek any speedy settlement of the native problem. I think that we should make sure that our young and older native people are trained to. discuss directly with the white people, to actually deal on a personal basis by mutual agreement without having any inferiority complex, Mr. Speaker. This has often characterized our discussions with the native people. We had a superiority complex as white people and we were always dealing from a superior point of view with them so that our relations were thwarted from the beginning. Now if we want to maintain those relations, we will have to be at the same status level and have the name degree of learning. And this calls for information and training, Mr. Speaker.

There is a fourth aspect I would like to deal with, even though time is moving fast, and this is local geography. When travelling through the Manicouagan riding and across Canada with the Transport Committee and different other committees, I have always noted how much the native people have been able to shape this country with their culture, their traditions, their own characteristics. It is very important for the sake of the discussions that will take place and with the motion introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), that native people be allowed a lot of room in this country. I am not certain that the current reserve system is the best formula. The native people themselves should be asked what they want in that respect, because reserves were established with the thought that they might be good to keep native people in one place. But the white man’s traditions and ways of life were forced down their throats, and this has imposed upon them a culture that is not theirs.

Sure enough the native people who live in Caughnawaga or who can live in the Huron Village or in other places in Vancouver or in Alberta, those who have become city dwellers, may have adopted our style of living. But if we are to preserve the rights and the characteristics of the native people, if they really insist on protecting their traditions, their heritage and their sociology, we will have to ensure that the Canadian territory is available to all native people. This is very important. This does not mean that either they or we have to forego the rights or lifestyle that we share in common. It is simply a matter of having complementary ways of life. I am thinking here of the various rivers where they go fishing for salmon and other species, the hunting of various species of game. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute anomaly that in this country we should have very restricted territories with an unbelievable number of licenses that a native must carry if he wants to do hunting, fishing or trapping for his livelihood. What the native people are asking us, and I remember two years ago the Montagnais from La Romaine were caught 300 miles north of La Romaine, in Labrador, and we had to send Canadian Forces’ helicopters to get them out because of abnormal winter conditions, that is too little snow and bad seasonal temperature causing the game to get rather scarce, and indeed the Indians went short of food and they had to be flown down fast. Those Indian people are forced to comply with all kinds of regulations, to get all sorts of licenses to live as their ancestors did, and it is my view that within the constitutional talks that will start we should be very, very cautious to ensure that the native people have the freedom to lead lives of fulfillment as far as hunting, tradition, medical care and their crafts are concerned, and this is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude on this because my time is up, but I would simply commend once again the Government, the native people and the provinces who have now succeeded in agreeing to initiate complete discussions on the constitutional level, respecting the rights of native men and women. I commend the nine provinces who have already taken part in this initiative, but I hope that Quebec will follow suit and very soon. And I hope that these talks will lead to a better life for all native people which will serve the best interests of Canada as a whole, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin): Order, please. The Chair should now see a Member to its left. However, I should inform the House that the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has already spoken in the debate. He may contribute additionally with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin): I appreciate the House giving me a few minutes, and I will take only a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. In my remarks I want to bring a few of the observations from the standing committee which received this resolution on Monday. We worked with it on Monday evening and through Tuesday. I think it is important, not only for this House but for the Senate, to recognize that the aboriginal groups want this resolution passed as quickly as possible.

I appreciated the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) on this Bill. I know

[Page 26954]

the Hon. Member for Manicouagan will be very interested in the report of the special committee on Indian self-government because that report will address many of the issues that he brought forward in the debate regarding the aboriginal people, the way that they relate to the people of Canada and to the Government of Canada. The protection of their lifestyle and culture is tied to a land base and that land base is very important to them. We will address that in our report.

I must say again that this Party and I approve of this resolution, the amendment to the Constitution. We want it passed with all haste. There are, however, some legitimate concerns that have been brought forward by Members of all Parties in this House and as well by various groups which appeared before the committee.

Let me quote the words of national chief Ahenikew who appeared before the standing committee on Monday night. I think his remarks really reflect some of the concerns that Members have regarding the process by which this amendment has been brought to the House. He said:

If you stop to think of what is really happening here, Parliament has been put in a similar position to the Indians. You—

Meaning Parliament.

—have a choice of rubber stamping an accord in which you have had minimum, if any, participation.

That is true. Members of Parliament have had very little participation in this whole process. In fact, we were not able to get any of the Government papers before the actual constitutional discussions were going on at the Conference Centre across the street. We had no idea what positions the national Government was taking to that conference. I hope in the future that can be amended. I know the various aboriginal groups were very forthcoming with their positions. They were putting them before Members of Parliament and before the country constantly. We really had no idea of the positions of a number of the Provinces and of the federal Government. What we, as Members of Parliament, are being asked to do today is, in fact, either to approve or to reject this process. If we amend it, we will have to go through the whole process again because the Provinces are involved in the amending process.

I agree completely with the statement which the National Chief put before the committee on Monday night. He went on to say:

Or, you can refuse to do so and see the constitutional process fade out of existence. Parliament should have been involved in an overseer role, from the beginning, to see that the process which produced the Accord was just and equitable, and in which the first nations had a determining voice. The entire process to which we were subjected caused divisions among the first nations. We cannot afford to be divided. Those who decided not to participate in the constitutional talks were as concerned as those who did. We did not divide ourselves. It was the process that divided us. What happens this year cannot allow that division to continue. In that respect, I must emphasize to you that my wish that the resolution be approved should not be interpreted-to mean that I approve the participation of the Provinces. Nor do l approve the process. Nor do I mean that the rights of those first nations that did not participate should be disregarded.

Basically the National Chief was saying that Indian, Inuit and Métis people are very concerned about the participation of the Provinces. They recognize that their rights flow through the Indian Act to the federal Government and, as a result, are very concerned that some of the rights they have attained could be passed off to the Provinces and their way of life could be lost. There is great concern regarding the process. They would far rather there be discussions between the aboriginal people and the federal Government and then the results of that discussion taken to the Provinces so that each and every party knows exactly the stands being taken before they go into la public forum with television cameras, the Premiers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a number of officials.

It is very difficult when negotiations take place before the entire country and television cameras for people not to play to the country. Therefore, there is often a question as to whether true negotiation can take place in such a forum. Aboriginal groups brought this concern before the committee, as they were asked for their ideas.

Also there seemed to be lack of direction. The agenda was set and a great number of items were placed on it. The groups were not sure which item would be chosen for debate. This caused some difficulties. The term “aboriginal people” in a Canadian sense as well as in the world sense is one about which we have to be concerned because it does not distinguish one troup from another. The Constitution indicates that aboriginal people are Indian, Inuit and Métis. They are concerned that there may be an over-emphasis on one group as opposed to another and suggest that we ought to start identifying them individually rather than as a group, which makes sense.

The process in the past has been that various aboriginal groups deal with bureaucrats in ongoing discussions before they actually get into the forum of discussion with the Provinces and the Prime Minister. The various groups that appeared before us were very concerned about this process and hoped that they could have discussions directly with Ministers as well as with the various officials, although the officials on all sides play an important part in the process.

The Inuit who appeared before us felt that politicians should be more involved in the process than they were in the past. They made a very firm recommendation that there be more information and more involvement by various political Parties in and before the next constitutional conference. Again and again each group appeared before the committee and indicated their concern that they did not know what was the position of the federal Government; they did not know on which of the agenda items there would be concentration in the next constitutional conference. It is very easy for the federal and provincial Governments, with their officials, to prepare themselves for all agenda items and then, with the give and take of the conference to concentrate on the one which seems to be in order, the one the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister wish to discuss.

Aboriginal groups are given specific funding by the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to prepare themselves for all the

[Page 26955]

issues. They would much rather see us concentrate on one or the other. These are some of the concerns which were raised before the committee. I commend the House for it will be passing this resolution today. Also I commend the nine Provinces that will pass similar resolutions, and I am pleased that my Province of Alberta was the first one to deal with this.

In conclusion, I would like to place two more quotations on the record because I think they are very important. The first quotation is by the National Native Council and the second one is by the Inuit Council for National Issues. They both indicated to the committee that while there are difficulties with the process, such as some of the matters which I mentioned today, this resolution must pass and must pass quickly. The first is a quote from Mr. Smokey Bruyere who represents as well the Native Women’s Association of Canada. He said:

The statement that I am going to make is designed to express some very real anxieties that we, as aboriginal leaders, are hearing from our people. But these statements should not be interpreted or used by any Member of any Party to delay the passage of this critical Bill.

I think that remark was also directed to the attention of the Senate. The next statement which I will quote was made by the Inuit Council for National Issues before the Committee last night. It said:

It is our understanding, however, that the equality provision is a priority agenda item for the next First Ministers’ Conference and we realize that the only way to pursue this issue further is through the ongoing process. We would prefer to deal with the matter in this way rather than place in jeopardy passage of the resolution.

On being questioned they again said that they were pleased with the progress and with the section referring to land claims and they thought that the resolution ought to pass.

I thought it was important to have on record those statements by the four groups that appeared before us in the last day and a half so that all Parties of the House, the Government, its Ministers and the Senate will attempt to pass the resolution and take cognizance of the various problems of these groups with the process. I am very pleased to have been given an opportunity to speak again on the resolution. This is an historic debate because it is the first amendment to the Constitution, and there is no need to have it ratified by any other Parliament.

Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be disposition for me to table certain documents, and I seek permission to do so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin): Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Minister to table certain documents?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROCLAMATION,
1983

MOTION TO AMEND CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan:

That:

Wheareas 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;

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

PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1. Paragraph 25(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

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

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.

[Page 26956]

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in 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:

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

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

“PART IV.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES

(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the government of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussion on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (I) 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 35(1).”

5. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following section:

“54.1 Part IV.1 and this section are repealed on April 18, 1987.

6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:

“61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.”

7. This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, in the closing moments of this debate, and I am very much aware of the cogent points that have been made with respect to this accord, I want to take a few moments of the time of the House to say, from the point of view of a Member of Parliament who was part of the federal delegation, a Member of Parliament who has for a number of years sat on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and who has since 1980 chaired that committee and is presently involved with his colleagues in sharing the task force on Indian self-government, what a proud moment it was for me to sit in the Conference Centre and see the process work in a most acceptable manner, leading to a satisfactory conclusion after only a few days.

It was less than a year since our Constitution was patriated when this meeting in March, 1983 was held. It was fitting that the Government of Canada should have chosen for the first constitutional amendment to deal with the aboriginal peoples of this country, the Indian, the Inuit and the Metis.

The true partners of Confederation were there: the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), the Premiers of the Provinces, the Leaders of the Territorial Governments, the Leaders of the Indian peoples, the Inuit and the Metis. The proper, correct partners of Confederation were there. Although I agree with much of what has been said by my Hon. friends on the other side, I cannot agree that the process was incorrect. The process was the right one because the aboriginal peoples of this country know that the future for them lies by way of constitutional recognition, by way of constitutional guarantees.

I want to say also that the opening statement made by the Prime Minister at that conference was one of the most remarkable speeches on the subject of aboriginal peoples I have ever heard. I say it was remarkable because, although it was delivered by the Prime Minister, it was not just the product of his own thinking. It is true that Dr. Ahenikew on Tuesday evening lamented the fact that parliamentarians had not been as fully involved in the process as he would have liked. I must say I give Dr. Ahenikew full marks for his respect for Parliament.

The Prime Minister’s speech was the product of a great deal of discussion which has gone on among parliamentarians, Inuit leaders, Indian leaders and the representatives of the Metis people. Thousands of hours of dialogue have taken place at the Indian Affairs Committee and at meetings with parliamentarians in their offices on the aspirations and the hopes of aboriginal peoples. Those many, many thousands of hours of discussions and honest exchange were reflected in the Prime Minister’s statement. That is why I applaud this document. It does represent for me the participation of parliamentarians over a long period of time.

I said that I was proud, I sat as a member of the federal delegation at that first constitutional conference, but I want to be very clear about the basis of my pride. I was proud because the Government of Canada had agreed that this was going to be the first action that we would take now that the Constitution was fully in our control. I was proud of that. I was proud that this was a new beginning for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, as I saw the Indian leaders, the Inuit leaders and the Metis leaders, I was not proud at all of the besmirched past which had brought them to this point.

It is not necessary in this debate ta go over all of that, but there is testimony in the thousands of pages of the proceedings of the Standing Committee and of the task force which I am presently chairing which tells just how dark and shameful is that past relationship between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples of this country. It is not a relationship of which any of us can take any pride. Therefore I want to be very clear that I was proud because it was a new beginning. It was a start for a new relationship that is going to make the aboriginal peoples full and complete partners in Confederation.

[Page 26957]

In the opening paragraph the Prime Minister said we had a Constitution that still needs to define the place of our aboriginal peoples in Canadian society. This was only the beginning, but it was a beginning that will reject some of the totally unacceptable approaches of the past; the approach of what sometimes is termed assimilation or termination, an attempt to absorb aboriginal peoples into the mainstream of Canadian society and cause them to lose their identity and distinctiveness. The statement categorically rejects that approach. We know that in the past this has been tried by a variety of means.

The opening statement also rejected the possibility that we could have in this country complete, total sovereign enclaves existing in isolation from the rest of the country. That, of course, is not realistic, and it offers no real hope for aboriginal peoples. The real hope is to become full and complete partners in Confederation. Therefore, the Prime Minister indicated that it was something between assimilation on the one hand, which had to be totally rejected, and something else on the other hand which has been described as sovereignty and which has no basis in realism. It is looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses.

To allow the aboriginal peoples to become full partners in Confederation also means that there will be an end to the paternalistic approach to these people, as if their affairs need to be managed by someone else; that there needs to be an entire department of well-meaning people who are going to be sure that Indian people are not alienated from their land; to be sure that Indian people are going to be able to look after their capital trust funds and that they will be doled out in amounts they will be able to manage, that we will not actively encourage independence by way of economic development—how much better it is to dole out small amounts of money and keep a half million people or more dependent upon the Government of Canada through social assistance. To become full partners in Confederation means the end of all of that. It means a new beginning.

The Prime Minister went on to say very clearly in his statement, reflecting what parliamentarians have been hearing for a long time, that the heart of the matter is to come to that moment in the constitutional discussions within the next few years when we will recognize the right of aboriginal peoples, Indians, Inuit and Metis, to manage their own affairs.

The task force hopes to define for Parliament and explain to the people of Canada exactly what Indian self-government means. We do emphasize that it means above all that they are going to be part and parcel of the Canadian Confederation. They are going to participate in it along with the Premiers, the leaders of the Territorial Governments, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice at conferences which are going to define and describe their future.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be enough as we forge ahead toward that definition based on this very admirable Accord, an Accord which is just a beginning. I compliment the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), and I share the sentiment of all the other Members of the House who have praised him for his good work at that conference, but it is a beginning. The next step must be the recognition of aboriginal peoples’ ability to manage their own affairs. Along with that, Sir, must go the economic wherewithal to manage their own affairs.

Under Section 36, Parts land II of the Constitution, we have provided for the Provinces the economic base to manage their own affairs within the jurisdiction assigned to them. That same step, Mr. Speaker, must be taken when we recognize Indian self-government. To simply recognize it and let it lie there as a constitutional right and to allow the present arrangement, relationship and dependency to be perpetuated will not be satisfactory. We must follow the example set by the agreement we have with the Provinces by saying: “We recognize you, we will negotiate your jurisdiction and we will provide you with the economic wherewithal so that you can realize your own destiny, so that you can establish your own priorities and so that you can give the leadership to your people that you have always wanted to give but that has been frustrated for hundreds of years because of the domination of one level of Government over your governments.”

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying that I think we have made a remarkable and amazing beginning and I applaud and commend the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada for setting us off on the right road. I look forward to seeing where this process will lead us in the next decade and beyond.

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River): Mr. Speaker, I will not keep the debate going for very much longer, but as the representative of the Sarcee, Stony and Blackfoot reserves I do want to make one or two comments on this historic occasion.

As so many Members have said, this is the beginning, and that is really all that it is. It is the beginning of negotiations. I would like to make some suggestions in regard to the continuation of these negotiations.

When I was with the Department of Highways in Alberta, I had the responsibility of negotiating with the Stony Indians for a right-of-way for the TransCanada Highway through their reserve. I spent many, many hours listening to the elderly chiefs in the band councils. One of the things that sticks in my mind is that time and time again the elderly chiefs outlined, sometimes in their own language which was interpreted and sometimes in good English, how the white man had deceived them. That was the biggest obstacle we had to overcome. They had learned to disbelieve white men because they had been deceived so many times.

I would like to suggest to those who do the negotiating now that we must be honest with our Indian friends, we must be honest with our Metis friends and we must be honest with our Inuit friends. There has been too much deceit on the part of white man in order to take advantage of these people. I believe that should be the base upon which we start to build a new relationship with native people of the country.

I remember one chief who must have been 90 years old. He had a tremendous memory. I think they called him Chief Buffalo Robe. He was a very religious man who was converted

[Page 26958]

by the MacDougalls in the early days. He lived a wonderful life, but one of the things that irked him most was the fact that the white men always talked down their noses to him. He was never accepted as an equal. We must realize that Indian, Metis and Inuits, each with their own cultures, were created by the same God who created us. They bleed when they are pricked as we do. Their women cry when their children die as our women do. We must treat them as equals.

We must recognize their cultures. We should not be trying to make white men of them. We have a culture of which we are proud and have every reason to be proud. I think we should develop our culture, but let us also recognize that the Indian people have a culture as well, a culture that is older than ours. Part of our culture is intertwined with the Indian culture. The Metis people have a culture, a culture that came from Scotland, Ireland, England, France and China along with the Indian culture. Those marriages that brought the Metis into the world had a culture of their own as well. Metis people are not to be considered vagabonds or illegitimates. They must be considered as men and women and recognized as equals. They have the desire to live as we do, to live well.

I would like to speak for a moment about self-government. I see that I only have three more minutes to do so. Our self-government should be an example to the Indian people. When Government Ministers refuse week after week to meet a delegation of Indian people, that does not set a very good example. When the Government refuses to unfreeze the capital moneys, so that Indians have to go out and borrow money to be paid back out of their grants, that is not something of which we can be very proud. When we give money in the form of grants to the Indians, as we did in October for a sewage system and then wonder why the money is wasted, the Indians lose respect for our way of Government.

Yes, I do believe in self-government for Indians, but it should not be imposed upon them. Let them accept it. Let them develop their own particular brand of Government. I must say that when I visit band councils I am amazed by the wisdom of the men and women. There are both men and women on band councils, but my heart bleeds when I see Indian children half-fed and half-clothed, when I see 27 of them in one house which should only accommodate five or six, when I see the standard of living we have subjected them to by closing them off and treating them as unequals. Then I go to our prisons and find that the greater percentage ‘of the prisoners are Indians, many there for trivial matters. I pay tribute to Chester Cunningham of Edmonton, an Indian himself, who is trying to get Indians a proper deal in the courts by helping them to understand what is right and wrong and not trying to shove them into jails for trivial matters. If they do some great wrong, certainly they expect to be punished, but certainly the great percentage of them should not be there.

I welcome these negotiations as well, and I hope this will be a new day with a new, honest approach to Indians, Inuits and Metis people.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin): Order, please. It being 6:19 p.m., pursuant to the agreement reached earlier today and the order made Thursday, June 23, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Motion (Mr. MacGuigan) agreed to.

* * *

Debates, Government Documents, House of Commons Debates, Section 25 [Constitution Act, 1982]

PrimaryDocuments.ca

Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (29 June 1983)

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

Like this:

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (29 June 1983)

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

Share this:

Like this:

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Discover more from PrimaryDocuments.ca