Document Information

Date: 1982-02-23
By: Eugene Steinhauer, Indian Association of Alberta, Alberta Office of the Premier.
Citation: TBA
Other formats: Click here to view the original document

Office of the Premier

403/427-2251

Legislative Building Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada T5K 2B7

February 24, 1982

Mr. Eugene Steinhauer

President Indian Association of Alberta

Room 202, Kingsway Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta

T5G 0X5

Dear Mr. Steinhauer:

On behalf of Premier Lougheed, I wish to acknowledge receipt of the copy of your February 22, 1982 telegram to Prime Minister Trudeau, regarding The Canada Bill.

Please be assured that the content of your telegram will be brought to the Premier’s attention at the earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely,

Patricia D. Lobregt

Special Secretary to

Premier Lougheed

cc: Honourable Dick Johnston

Honourable Dr. Don McCrimmon

1

MEA 656 Feb 23 1658 EST

EEDL779 1205 NL

Edmonton Alta 23

Peter Lougheed, Premier of Alberta

307 Legislative Bldg Edmonton Alta

Feb 22, 1982

Rt Hon Pierre E Trudeau

Office of the P.M.

Ottawa

Dear Mr Prime Minister

As you are no doubt aware, the Indian and other Aboriginal peoples continue to have strong reservations with regard to the development, content and means of adoption of the Canada Bill. The Indian and other Aboriginal people in Canada have in the past 2 yrs attempted to achieve meaningful and effective participation in the constitutional renewal process as a result of your undertaking that we would be involved in deliberations on matters that affect our rights and freedoms.

We were excluded from this process due to the plans of the Fed Govt to accommodate the provincial interests and the undertaking on participation you originally gave us has not been carried out. As a result of non-participation, the provisions of the Canada Bill are, as respects our rights and freedoms, poorly drafted, ill-considered and damaging to us.

There has never been any doubt about our willingness to participate in the renewal process if it was on a meaningful basis, and this continues to be the case today, which as you know was made clear to the Gov-Gen in Nov/81. Over the past 2 yrs a no. of proposals have been developed by the Indian and other Aborig. peoples in Canada, and this can be taken as an indication that we have always been prepared to participate in constructive dialogue on our future and the future of our grandchildren.

2

The Canadian resolution was passed by the Ott Parliament with little or no consideration of matters of the highest importance to us, and as a result it contains provisions which adversely affect the rites and freedoms that we possess (and will not surrender). You will of course appreciate that we are compelled to take such action as is required in the circumstances to protect our endangered freedoms and rites, which included taking our case to U.K. and on to the U.N.

As you are no doubt aware, a no. of reasonable amendments have been prepared to correct what are grave deficiencies in the Can. Bill. It is our intention to continue to lobby to have the Indian case raised in the Westminster Parliament. It is the prevailing view in the U.K. Parliament that the Indian case should have been dealt with by responsible parliamentarians in Can, and there are indications that the debate on Indian rite and freedoms will be long and not complimentary to the Canadian govt. The Canada Bill, as the Speaker has ruled, is amendable we have been asked by our supporters to request that you do all within your authority not to put the U K Parliam in the potentially embarrassing position of having to act unilaterally.

We call your attention to a set of quotes from the Rt Hon Denis Healey’s speech in Hansard of Feb 17th, pp. 302-303:

”If it were to be amended that could open a major and unnecessary constitutional crisis between us in Britain and the people of Can, but one has the rite to ventilate some of the concerns in the hope that the authorities in Can will take accnt of our views”

”I have noticed that Canadian mbrs of parliam are no more no more reluctant than British MP’s to discuss the internal affairs of other countries when they feel strongly about then, whether it is S. Africa or C. America. I hope that what is said in this debate and in comm will evoke some response fr the Can’ian authorities, because the bill will get a much larger and a much freer majority if the concern can be met in some way.”

3

In summary, some of our concerns with regard to the Can Bill are as follows:

1. 1. Sec 25 is not a guarantee, but a clause of interpretation and construction, which contains the inference that Ind rites are mere possibilities, there are improvements required such as the deletion of the term ‘any’ m also the addition of (c) ‘the benefit of the provisions of the covenant on civil and political rites’ is necessary to ensure that our reserves will not be overrun by non-Indians.

   2. Sec 35 is unclear, requiring the deletion of ‘existing’. This sec is vulnerable to Part V, the gen amending formula so Ind rites are not entrenched since they can be removed without Ind consent. Political maneuverings on ‘existing’ indicate that there will, as in the past be no consultation with Aboriginal people. Sec 35 is vague and will only lead to litigation and courts cannot be relied upon to deal with these questns on a fair and equitable basis, thus an independent board is required to define rites.

   3. Sec 37 conference provision is deficient in that it does not define who the Aboriginal respresentatives are and this is corrected by adding the 1st Nations Assembly as the resp party, with provisions for other Abor peoples. The term ‘directly’ must be removed since this presupposes the Fed Govt will have determined beforehand what ‘directly’ affects Indians, pre-empting full discussions and agreement on agenda items. The major defect is that it is a Fed Prov Conf with Indians being mere invitees. Under existing 37(1) and 54, the conf is repealed after 1 yr. To provide for continuing involvement in Constitutional Conf’s clause 49 must be amended to include Aborig representatives. If no agreement is reached on the Ind rites quest, ie. 1976 NIB-Cabinet joint committ the matter would be referred to an Aborig rites commission established in the Constitution as an independent body with proper duties and powers, appointed by the Gov-Gen (note the

4

Denning decision on his special role in relation to Idn rites) and also provision is made for proper appointment of Aborig representatives. Terms of reference and methods of appointment are developed, include the identification and definition of rites, initiating legal proceedings, doing impact assessments of proposed legislation and making recommendatons for new legislation.

1. 4. Sec 49 is a proposed new clause where amendments require the consent of Aborig people. Also it prov consent to changes in Fed and Prov enactments affecting Aborig people.

The British Parliam is fully entitled, both in legal terms, and as the Speaker here has now confirmed, in terms of convention, to act unilaterally to amend the Can Bill. At this critical juncture, we would request in the strongest possible terms that you act to move th necessary resol in the Canadian Parliam to request and consent to the amendments agreed between us. We have no doubt that the Brit Govt would be only too happy, before the committ stage of the bill is reached, to postpone proceedings pending an accord between the Cabinet and Indian and Aboriginal interests.

There may be 1 last opportunity to create unity and trust between our respective constituencies while the bill is before the United Kingdom Par.

We would indeed sincerely hope that such an approach would succeed.

Yours sincerely Eugene Steinhauer, President, Indian Assoc of Alta.

Note: The original of this message was signed by the Pres of the IAA and delivered to Mrs Wadd in London