Document Information

Date: 1983-06-27
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Parliament, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, No 69 (27 June 1983).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

[Page 3]

ORDERS OF REFERENCE

Monday, June 27, 1983

ORDERED,—That the following motion be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

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:

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 Paragraph 25(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor: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

[Page 4]

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:

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 Minsiter 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.

ATTEST

[Page 5]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1983
(82)

[Text]

The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development met at 8:08 o’clock p.m., this day, the Chairman, Mr. Keith Penner, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Messrs. Allmand, Chenier, Manly, Penner, Schellenberger and Tousignant.

Alternate present: Mr. Nickerson.

Other Members present: Messrs. Oberle and Skelly.

Witnesses: From the Assembly of First Nations: Dr. David Ahenakew, National Chief; Mr. Dave Monture, Special Assistant.

The Order of Reference dated Monday, June 27, 1983, being read as follows:

ORDERED,—That the following motion be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

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:

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 6]

(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:

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 Minsiter 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:

[Page 7]

“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.

It was agreed,—That the Native Women’s Association of Canada be invited to appear before the Committee on Tuesday, June 28, 1983 at 8:00 o’clock p.m.

Dr. Ahenakew made a statement and, with Mr. Monture, answered questions.

It was agreed,—That the letters from the Native Council of Canada, the Metis National Council, the Inuit Committee on National Issues, and the Assembly of First Nations regarding the 1983 Constitutional Accord on Aboriginal Rights be printed as an appendix to this day’s Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence. (See Appendix “IAND—13”).

At 9:46 o’clock p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

[Page 8]

EVIDENCE

(Recorded by Electronic Apparatus)

[Text]

Monday, June 27, 1983

The Chairman: Order, please.

The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development is meeting this evening pursuant to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983, which was deemed referred to this committee at 1.00 p.m. today. I should remind members that this will be deemed to have been reported back at 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 29.

I am reminded by the Clerk of the Committee that it is customary to read the order of reference, but it is a lengthy one, going to nearly three pages. It has been circulated to the members.

May I take it from the members that the order of reference is taken as read?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Monday, June 17, 1983

ORDERED—That the following motion be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

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, 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.

[Page 9]

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 the 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 the 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.

[Page 10]

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.

ATTEST
C.B. KOESTER
The Clerk of the House of Commons.

The Chairman: For our first witness in these hearings we have the Assembly of First Nations. Of course the people from the Assembly of First Nations are well known to the committee: Dr. David Ahenakew, National Chief; and Mr. David Monture, Special Assistant.

Dr. Ahenakew, welcome back before the committee. We are always pleased to see you.

Do you have an opening statement or do you want to go into questions immediately?

Mr. Oberle: Mr. Chairman, before you do, with your indulgence and that of the witnesses, I would like on a point of order to bring to your attention and the attention of our colleagues that we have tabled with the clerk a text—which we would like to propose either today or tomorrow; it would probably be more convenient tomorrow . . . of an eighth report, a report that would be filed with this report as either preceding or subsequent to the report that relates to the reference on this resolution. 1 would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, if the members would read the report and take notice that it is my intention to move the adoption of that report tomorrow.

The Chairman: It was suggested that there would be an all-party drafting committee. Is this report the result of that?

Mr. Oberle: This is our own draft since there was no drafting committee.

The Chairman: Oh, that was merely a suggestion, but it was not followed through.

Mr. Oberle: That is right.

The Chairman: Is this now in the hands of all members?

Mr. Oberle: I think so, yes.

The Chairman: So your request is that this document be considered tomorrow, at the end of the business for tomorrow, all the witnesses scheduled for tomorrow having been heard. Is that correct?

Mr. Oberle: That is right, or at the end of the first meeting tomorrow in case there is any need for change or addition.

[Page 11]

The Chairman: All right. There is a meeting scheduled tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. in Room 269 in the West Block. The Coalition of First Nations and the Union of New Brunswick Indians are scheduled to appear. So if there is time, after having heard them you would like this document agreed to?

Mr. Oberle: Right. I will be moving in the course of that meeting the acceptance of that report.

The Chairman: All right. Is it then agreed that tomorrow, time permitting, the documents submitted by Mr. Manly be considered?

An hon. Member: Mr. Manly?

The Chairman: By Mr. Oberle.

Mr. Manly: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: Mr. Manly.

Mr. Manly: I have enough difficulty with the hon. member from Spadina . . .

The Chairman: Yes, I know.

Mr. Manly:—with whom I am in substantial agreement on many issues, but I do not wish to be confused with the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

The Chairman: I appreciate your sensitivities, and they have been duly noted. Thank you, Mr. Manly.

Mr. Oberle: So long as you support the report, I do not mind.

Mr. Manly: I will support the report.

The Chairman: So it is not a formal motion, because we lack a quorum, but it would be general agreement that this document be considered tomorrow. Is that agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Mr. Gingras, you will be in the Chair. You can guide it through the committee with your usual skill.

Mr. Manly: On a further point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Manly.

Mr. Manly: I note the list of witnesses here. Has the Native Women’s Association of Canada been invited to appear regarding the constitutional accord?

The Chairman: Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. Manly: Could I request that they be invited to appear?

The Chairman: You have heard the request from Mr. Manly. Is it agreed that they be invited to appear?

Mr. Oberle: When?

The Chairman: It would have to be tomorrow. That would be the only time.

[Page 12]

Mr. Manly: I think they have a very vital interest in this whole issue, Mr. Chairman. It deals with the equality section. They had some very basic concerns about changes that were purported to have been made in the draft agenda, and I think they should be given the opportunity to appear before the committee.

The Chairman: Do you want to invite them to appear tomorrow evening?

Mr. Manly: If that is possible.

The Chairman: You have heard the request from Mr. Manly. Is it agreed that they be invited?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Chairman: All right, they will be invited to appear tomorrow evening. They will be number three on the order.

Any further points of order?

Dr. Ahenakew, did you have an opening statement?

Chief David Ahenakew (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee, today I listened with great interest to the debate that went on in the House regarding those matters that directly affect us. I must say that the whole thrust of the debate or at least the comments that were made were those which we could subscribe to at any time of the day.

Mr. Chairman, it is good to see, after several years of being ignored in this whole question of aboriginal rights, Parliament is now becoming truly involved. My presence here tonight is to encourage you to stay involved now that you have your foot in the door once again. It is healthy for Canada, and it is certainly healthy for us.

First of all I want to tell you that we believe Parliament should approve the resolution . . . not because it is the best, not because it recognizes Indian people and the rights that have always been theirs and not because it brings honour to Canada, but because it is the only way the constitutional discussions can be kept alive. Without the resolution the little bit of leverage which the First Nations have to bring this historic matter to the fore would be lost.

At the Assembly of First Nations in Winnipeg last month a constitutional accord was ratified after a lengthy debate. I wish I could say there was unanimity among the First Nations, that we felt that finally our relationship with Canada had reached some harmonious bench-mark, that the bitterness and mistrust caused by the disgraceful and careless historical track record had been replaced with good feelings. I hope I can come back after the next first ministers conference and say those things then.

[Page 13]

I want to invite each member of Parliament from each party and each and every Canadian to join with the First Nations to get this constitutional matter done right so that the new era of coexistence and harmony that we keep alive in our hearts will become a reality.

If you stop to think of what. is really happening here, Parliament has been put in a similar position to the Indians. You have a choice of rubber-stamping an accord in which you have had minimal, if any, participation, 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 one 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 I approve the process. Nor do I mean that the rights of those First Nations that did not participate should be disregarded. I simply mean that I want the door left open.

When I spoke at the First Ministers’ Conference I said: This is your forum, not ours. If the conference was a public consultation process, all right; but if it was to negotiate and resolve problems, no way. We had been excluded from its design from day one. I reminded the participants that our relationship is with Canada rather than with its parts. I repeated that we are committed to strengthening and building Canada, not to dismantling it. I said our first priority was to secure constitutional entrenchment of the rightful place of Indian governments within the Canadian federation. I asked for a process to enhance our journey towards the exercise of our sovereignty within the Canadian federation.

I tabled our constitutional position before the parliamentary task force on Indian self-government when I appeared before it on February 22.

I ask you now: Has the resolution you are being asked to ratify any more than the faintest glimmer of those reasonable hopes and aspirations? To what length are we being pushed by processes such as these? The fact the conference was held at all is a great credit to Canada in the eyes of the world. We do not want to take anything away from that. At the same time,

[Page 14]

we do not believe anywhere near its potential was reached. We valued very much the opening remarks of Prime Minister Trudeau. The leadership and vision he demonstrated in that statement gave us much hope.

Our criticisms are directed primarily at the process which led up to our sitting together with the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the provinces. I do not want to appear to be critical of the Prime Minister, nor the premiers, nor the officials. We all seem to have been riding together down the same slippery slope, all of us afraid to jump off, nobody able to control the ride. We all finished with some relief that we had not crashed, but when we coasted to a stop, at the least the First Nations could see clearly that we did not end up anywhere near where we thought we were going. The only thing we had to show for our trouble was a ticket for another free ride with the same crew. This time though, we are going to make sure this process has some kind of steering mechanism, and we are inviting Parliament along for the next run.

Now, what were some of the things that went wrong. To start with, it is only a racist concept that can juggle the First Nations, the Inuit and the Metis as being some sort of a legal category called aboriginal peoples. That description may help to distinguish people who trace their ancestry to other continents from those of us who were here from time immemorial, but as a description which implies that we all have the same goals, the same aspirations, it is false. White Canadians may think in terms of us and them. We Indians think of ourselves not solely as aboriginal people, but as First Nations. The Inuit think of themselves as Inuit, and the Metis as Metis. Just as we, the First Nations, are entitled to pursue our objectives without having to be reduced to some lowest common denominator, some of the Metis and Inuit are entitled to pursue their goals without having to somehow fit into what the First Nations are saying. Even the Prime Minister has publicly recognized that we are different, one from the others. So first we must have separate tracks, and when we have our own accord worked out, we will be happy to join together in the same room with the Inuit and Metis, so that each of us can sign our own accord in the same celebration. I am asking you, as members of Parliament, to find some way to make sure that happens.

[Page 15]

I would like to invite you to help us make another change. What Canada saw last March in the convention centre with the premiers and the Prime Minister was almost like actors ad libbing on a nationwide TV spectacular in which most of the basic important irreversible decisions had been made months before by the bureaucrats.

It may come as a surprise to you to know the process by which we arrived at the centre last March, so you can understand better. Suppose Canada wanted to work out an agreement of friendship and mutual assistance and definition of rights with any First Nations, which in fact did happen only a short 200 years ago. Suppose when your best leadership arrived to make the preliminary arrangements, we sent you to the kitchen to work it all out with some of the hired hands, and supposing these hired hands began telling you that everything you wanted was a non-starter, and that you would be invited only if you dealt with them. I do not believe you would be happy. You would want to be talking to the people who represented their nation; who could make decisions; who had the power to negotiate. Why talk with the little fellow with the tin cup when you can go straight to the organ-grinder? Would you not feel more comfortable than you do now, dealing with a document of uncertain parentage, conceived by bureaucrats in the vaults of government where they are not accountable to anyone? What they do is hidden and protected from your scrutiny as parliamentarians and from the scrutiny of Canadians who have an interest in keeping their governments honest and accountable.

So join with us in finding some way to provide a process at the political level, through which we can negotiate the necessary arrangements, if not an agreement itself that we can bring to the next First Ministers’ Conference. Incidentally, what is the federal government’s position on this matter of aboriginal rights and self-government and the place of the First Nations in Canada? Did you know what it was before the March conference opened? Do you not think, as members of Parliament, that you should have known? And do you know what it was after the conference ended? Do you not think you should, and do you not think, as parliamentarians, you should have some opportunity to debate and influence the government’s position, Canada’s constitutional position, which will affect all parties, all governments, before the next First Ministers’ Conference begins? Or are you in the same position as the First Nations, playing in a poker game in which one player never has to show his cards, according to rules that he has determined, and which gives him the right to declare the winner?

The place of the first ministers in Canada is something which should be widely discussed. Canadians should be educated on the obligations which they are bound to honour

[Page 16]

because of sacred documents which are the foundation on which the Constitution rests, obligations which international conventions demand.

Canadians should be educated on the waste of their tax dollars under the present arrangements, and how justice on aboriginal rights can combine to enable the First Nations to be productive partners and contributing neighbours.

These three fundamental problems in which I am asking your involvement complicated and led to the fourth—the involvement of the provinces. Amendments to the Constitution require a degree of provincial agreement. That was not the doing of the First Nations. We had no say in the drafting of the Constitution.

The provinces are the natural opponents of most of the rights and claims of the First Nations, not the people of the provinces but the nature of the provincial government itself. That has been recognized from the very beginning and that is why 91.24 was put into the British North America Act and why the Crown had to put the clamps on the colonial governors through royal proclamations. So we cannot pretend now that it is any different.

What is missing is political will. If the federal government set as a goal that it was going to recognize the fact of the First Nations in Canada; that aboriginal rights were going to be honoured as proudly as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that Indian self-government was going to find its proper place in relation to other orders of government; that the First Nations were going to join in a confederation which would be an international model; if the federal government had the political will to make that happen, it would surely find a way in which the provinces would exercise their rightful responsibilities in a way which does not become the conflict of interest that the federal government has so cleverly and neglectfully dangled before them, in a process that was designed to fail.

I do not like to believe that political will no longer exists in Canadian politics. I do not like to believe that Parliament cannot ignite and fan and fuel that political will. So I ask you to demand and express enough political will, at the political level, to find some way to keep the provinces at arm’s length without denying them their lawful rights.

There are many other things I could mention. Within the Assembly of First Nations, we have nations that concentrate on their treaties with the Crown. Others concentrate their attention on aboriginal title and aboriginal rights. Pursuit of recognition of different kinds of rights requires different types of forums. Parliament should be aware of and approving of funding levels and funding conditions through which the First Nations may participate at the national and regional levels in the constitutional process, as well as the bilateral process.

You will see from the accord that the bilateral process has been formalized. What that means is a formal recognition of

[Page 17]

the special relationship between the federal government and the First Nations, dating back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, now a part of the Constitution, and given statutory form by Section 91.24.

Many of our First Nations intend to pursue dialogue with the federal government to settle both constitutional and non-constitutional issues, and we need the financial and human resources to do this.

Mr. Chaiman, I would now like to draw your attention to the proposed legislation regarding British Columbia cut-off lands. While it is commendable that the Minister of Indian Affairs is consulting with Indian leaders before the legislation is tabled in the House, all this is a festering matter long overdue. This is the type of thing we have often complained about

On the agenda for the ongoing conference is the question of aboriginal title. Yet before the ink is even dry on the paper, let alone something else, we find legislation that proposes to extinguish aboriginal rights and aboriginal title. Many First Nations in British Columbia are quite rightly objecting to this, and have asked that I convey their objections to you. Why should First Nations be required to extinguish claims that are in the process of becoming constitutionally entrenched? This is unfair and unwarranted and your committee should take note of what is happening. We need a moratorium on this kind of activity, unless it is at the initiative and demand of the First Nations, while we are having the First Ministers’ Conference.

You will recall that Pope John Paul said in Poland only last week that human rights are derived from possession of land. That is precisely what the First Nations have been saying, and we have hope that people are now listening.

Mr. Chairman, I will now attempt to summarize what I have been saying. I am asking that Parliament, through the standing committee and otherwise, keep oversight regarding all preparations, presentations, etc., by the federal government. The First Nations, Metis and Inuit issues should be divided into separate tracts. The First Ministers’ Conference clearly showed that each group has different interests and positions, based on different rights. Second, the federal government must make its position known well ahead of future First Ministers’ Conferences. Third, discussions leading up to the future of First Ministers’ Conferences must be addressed at the proper political level, not at the bureaucratic level to which the federal government has relegated it. Fourth, the bilateral process to deal with constitutional and non-constitutional business between the First Nations and Canada must be operational and ongoing. Fifth, all processes, bilateral and multilateral, must be prepared jointly with the AFN and not imposed by governments. FMCS must be formalities to confirm work already done at a political level lower than that of first ministers. Sixth, the First Nations must be provided

[Page 18]

adequate resources for our internal preparation at both regional and national levels.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am ready to answer any questions that the members may wish to ask.

The Chairman: Dr. Ahenakew, we thank you for that clear and unambiguous statement, which is your usual style. I am sure there are some questions.

Mr. Schellenberger, would you like to lead off?

Mr. Schellenberger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions. You mentioned the bilateral process; that, of course, has also been one of my criticisms of the way the Prime Minister and the government handled themselves up to the last conference. That is now institutionalized. My question to you is: Is anything taking place at this time that would show you that in fact there is a change that will result this time leading up to March as compared to last time? You put a lot of faith in members of Parliament and committees, but we often do not know either what in fact is happening unless we can seek that information from you and from others.

Chief Ahenakew: At the moment there is not that much activity, except the organizing and the structuring of that new unit that the Prime Minister —whatever it is called now—and secondly, some of the staffing that took place, in which I must tell you we intervened because of the manner in which people were being recruited or parachuted from all over the place, which is contrary to the policy regarding employment of people.

For our part, we have had meetings, not only among ourselves, organized ourselves into a working group, mapped out our priorities and begun to organize around those priorities rather than around the resources we have available. We will be meeting next month as a full Confederacy to discuss further the recommendations made by the working group.

I think at that time there will be absolute clear direction as to what we must do. So I am saying that from our side there has been a lot of activity, and secondly, from the side of the federal government I think there is some activity. There have been one or two meetings of officials to try to determine the agenda items and further to pursue a clear definition or a clear operational plan for the bilateral process. We have not yet reached any real clarification or any real idea and cohesiveness, if you will, of how the bilateral process will work, but certainly a bilateral process, I might add right now, is becoming very much of a priority process in the eyes of the First Nations of the country.

[Page 19]

That is not to say we are deviating or sloughing off or moving ourselves away from the multilateral process. We realize that we must. be in that. process because of the nature of the Constitution and its amendment procedures. So that is where things are at.

Mr. Schellenberger: When you said that Canadians should be educated and that perhaps the actors around the table were ad-libbing policy, maybe it is even more than Canadians. Perhaps some of the provincial governments need some education in this way.

This bilateral, multilateral process: how do you feel that could be changed so there would be some idea of the types of ideas that were being passed back and forth before we actually get to the conference and see what positions have been taken? Is there any advantage in some of those conferences or those negotiations being relatively open, or is it better to keep them relatively in camera?

Chief Ahenakew: No, I believe there should be a wide-open I type of discussion on whatever we do. Too often we closet. ourselves in a room because of the fact that the ministers or the first ministers have not yet determined what it is they are going to agree to. I think that is a bunch of crap; and I say that with all the humility I can muster. Nevertheless, if there is to be an educational process in this country, which for me is very, very seriously lacking, we must have wide-open dialogue where Canadians and then the First Nations members will also be involved in some way, whether it is through radio, TV, or some other means; because without that type of dialogue, I am afraid we are just dialoguing and that is it. We cannot accept that as First Nations. I am sure that as parliamentarians you cannot accept that either.

I think on the part of the preparations we have been involved in—I have had discussions with the NCC as well as with the ICNI; private discussions on how we are to proceed now. In other words, a liaison is clearly established at that level. So I do not want to have any misunderstanding about that. When I say “tracking” or “the separate objectives and philosophies and the differences that exist”, we do communicate.

But the thing is, the people I represent will not accept the lumping of the various aboriginal groups of the country; not at this particular moment; and I cannot tell you when it will be acceptable. I suppose when Canada finally realizes that there is another order of government in this country, there are rights that are inherent in this country, and we are going to do our damndest to make sure that those matters are protected, from there we can feel comfortable. The mistrust that exists, the uncertainty that exists, I think will be eliminated. Then, I guess, we will discuss the First Nations entering into confeder-

[Page 20]

acy, into the Confederation, and I think from there we will have a Canada that we can save; we can take the lead in this world as a model of this divergence or the diversity of cultures and so on. I think then we can—any prime minister, whether it is Liberal, NDP or PC—I do not know what the hell it is going to be next time around—nor do I care as long as they are Canadians in this country. I will let you guys fight that one out.

Part of the problem . ..and you mentioned that—is not being a part of the drafting of the Constitution, but recognizing now that the provinces are involved in any amendments that are made. In your opinion, what is the way to get the ideas flowing to the provinces so they know what they should be discussing? Are you intending to do any of that directly, or do you feel that in the bilateral process between the federal government and the First Nations those those ideas will be transmitted to the provinces so that in fact they know positions that are taken beforehand, or is that already going on?

Chief Ahenakew: As a matter of fact, it is already going on. As a matter of fact, I met with one of the ministers from Manitoba this morning in my office, and that is precisely what we were talking about, the bilateral process between the First Nations within that province and the provincial government because of the whole question of jurisdiction.

Yes, I am requesting meetings with the ministers responsible for the Constitution and, for that matter, native affairs and the premiers of the country to make sure that they understand just exactly where we are coming from and why. It does not matter whether they agree or not, as long as they understand where we are coming from so they have a good idea how to deal with these serious matters. So, yes, that process is in fact taking place. I was in Alberta last week, and the Indian leaders of that province… a minister was there at the banquet, at the same time, and I was very impressed with the statements. Of course, I was happy that it was the first province, I believe, that passed the resolution in their legislature.

I also told them—and I think I should pass that message along here as well… because you represent a native affairs agency or department within that government, do not forget there is a clear distinction between the Indian and Metis people. There is a clear distinction of rights; there is a clear distinction of aspirations. All I wanted to do was to make sure that these distinctions or aspirations were clearly expressed to them.

Mr. Schellenberger: I am glad to hear those answers. I must ask another question. we are meeting the Coalition of First Nations tomorrow. Perhaps I will let you explain to me your response to the Coalition of First Nations regarding the

[Page 21]

resolution and how you see that development in the future as we go to the next conference.

Chief Ahenakew: As I say, and I think I said it very clearly in my opening remarks, there are divisions as a result of the constitutional process. There are many factors that made these people decide to do what they did, and I respect that. I respect that very much. But at the same time, it was incumbent upon us at the constitutional conference to make sure that we found accommodations for these people, one of which is that federal-Indian relationship that the Maritimes, for example, parts of Manitoba and so on, hold very dearly. We therefore had to press for the bilateral discussions, knowing full well that the bilateral process itself is not going to affect amendments to the Constitution, but surely it could lead to that. We can accommodate these people through this bilateral process which will eventually lead to the constitutional amendments, if that is what is required. I think they understand that; I think that is an avenue they have been looking for. If it is, I am very happy.

Secondly, I think the fact that they can feel with some certainty that the provinces are not going to sit there and decide their future, rather than the special relationship … and the federal government, which should have the obligation, not only the responsibility but also the obligation, to resolve those matters they are concerned with. I think those are appropriate concerns, proper concerns. Again very openly I say to you that the other reason they decided to do what they did was when the confederacy of the first nations decided to pursue an official alliance with the other native groups; that was another factor.

Nevertheless, I think we have resolved many of these issues. All we have to do now is put the right type of processes that will allow them to participate, where they will feel a lot of certainty and confidence that their own future is what they are working for and with, and show some results at some point.

Mr. Schellenberger: I have one further question. The Office of Native Constitutional Affairs, is that now the area you are dealing with as far as the Prime Minister is concerned on constitutional talks—I mean, as far as the process and funding are concerned? Or is the Justice minister involved in that, or the Minister of Indian Affairs? Who are you going to, as far as the federal government is concerned, for two things: one, funds; the other on the process? I mean, if you feel there are any problems with the process.

Chief Ahenakew: First of all, we have not limited ourselves to this new office, or the Justice minister, or the Minister of Indian Affairs. But we have informed them, including the Minister of State, that the present resources we have now, because of the nature of the work which must be done if we are to have any success at all, must be reconsidered.

I do not for a moment agree, nor will I agree in the future, that this new office should now, all of a sudden, take over

[Page 22]

Indian affairs. That is not the way it is going to be. I tell you that now. And they might as well understand that they are not going to determine our funding requirements. They are not going to determine what it is we are going to do, how we are going to get there, or how the day-to-day issues of the bands are going to be looked at, or looked after. There is no way they can be involved in that. And we might as well them them now that they will not be involved in it. Theirs is this multilateral process.

As for the bilateral process, I believe the federal government and, particularly in this case, Mr. Munro, as the minister responsible for Indian Affairs, must have direct input into that bilateral process. That will be insisted upon. It has been already. And again, I think we should understand that is the way it will go.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Schellenberger. Our next questioner is Warren Allmand, please.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Chairman, prior to the constitutional conference, National Chief Ahenakew sent us letters in which he set out the points he wished to accomplish at the conference. There were nine of them. It seems to me that, looking at the accord and looking at his letter of February 2, the nine items or matters he attempted to achieve, the first and the ninth were obtained and are in the accord—the first being an ongoing process, and the ninth being to include in Sections 25 and 35 the rights acquired by way of new treaties and land claims settlements. At least seven of the remaining eight items are being put on the agenda for the remaining conferences, but there is one where there is a bit of confusion, or there may be two.

The fourth point was that there must be provision in the Constitution Act requiring Indian consent to any amendment to the Constitution affecting aboriginal title, treaty, aboriginal and other constitutional rights of Indian peoples. I know National Chief Ahenakew and his representatives of the different Indian nations, the First Nations, fought hard to get agreement to that, but the government did not give.

On the other hand, what they did agree to was Section 3 of the resolution that we have before us today, which says that they have not agreed to a consent clause but they agree to convene a conference of representatives of the First Nations and other aboriginal peoples whenever somebody puts forward a proposal to amend Section 91.24 or Section 25 or Section 35.

What I want to ask National Chief Ahenakew is whether or not by agreeing to that part of the accord he is doing so as a temporary compromise without prejudice to continue to pursue what he originally was after. In other words, has he agreed to this as a compromise and abandoned his original request for a consent clause, or is he agreeing to this without prejudice to continue his fight and to obtain a legitimate consent clause for amendments to the Constitution? It is quite important because I want to make sure that it is understood that in agreeing to

[Page 23]

this accord and asking that it be put through, on that point, either it is or it is not the last word.

Chief Ahenakew: No. It was more of a compromise position to make sure that we had the time and the opportunity to express to Canada, and the world for that matter, the very things that are very crucial to us. We agreed to the accord, first, because it guaranteed, or at least at that particular moment, there was a good chance it would guarantee, an ongoing process which would enable us to continue to pursue these nine items which we put forward as the very basic position of the First Nations. We did not abandon our right, our very right, the whole question of putting in the hands of governments and Canadians, those matters that directly affect us. That is all we are saying; that we want to be consulted; we want to make sure that our consent, or at least some form of consensus, is first of all obtained on anything that affects the Indians. That is what we are really saying. We are not saying, look, we will veto this or veto that. We want to be fair. We know this is a very touchy area for everyone, for every government, any government in the world, and particularly in this country.

But we felt, and we had some real serious pressure-type discussion when the accord was being formalized and the final dots and t’s and so forth were being carried out, that we had to decide right there on the spot how we would proceed forward and how we would continue to try to get those things we feel are very, very important to our future. So it was not an abandonment of those basic principles; it was just. a compromise for the time being to make sure these discussions continue, because I believe it is incumbent, in my opinion and possibly by design: the First Nations are going to have to educate Canada. Parliamentarians have not been able to do it. Certainly the provincial legislatures have not been able to do it—whether that is by design or not; I do not intend to accuse anyone of matters of that kind. It is clear to me that in Canada there is an awful lot of support for those things we are trying to do. I sense that right across the country; I sense even some changes in the attitude, except for New Brunswick, I suppose, but I expected that in any case; the governments of the provinces are in fact starting to see the light as well. They are starting to see that this is not a power grab; this is not a case of the province’s losing; it is a case of Canadians’ winning. 1 think this is the type of thing, the type of information and contact that has to be conveyed to Canadians, and certainly the various power groups in this country are starting to see the light as well.

Now, as for international relations, again, we do not go internationally to try to embarrass anyone; we go internationally to tell the world the true nature of this Indian—federal or Canadian relationship. All we are trying to do is get that straight for the first time in our record books. All we are trying to do is to make sure that. the history of this country is

[Page 24]

accurately told and accurately reflected in the basic law of the country. That is all we are trying to do, and I think anyone with any common sense at all would agree with that.

Mr. Allmand: That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Allmand. Mr. Manly, please.

Mr. Manly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Chief Ahenakew for appearing before the committee and sharing some of his views on the accord.

I have just a couple of questions. First of all, dealing with Section 2 of the accord, where it makes changes to Section 35 of the Constitution Act and in particular to add subsection 4 to Section 35, I quote:

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.

Now, there have been statements made by other organizations that the wording we have in the final accord was changed from the original agreement that was reached by the representatives of the first ministers and representatives of the national organizations when the draft was made. Do you have any recollection of such changes having been made?

Chief Ahenakew: I have checked with my officials very closely on that very thing, because I did receive the copies of those concerns from the other national aboriginal associations, and their recollection, and mine as well, was that the wording was what we had originally agreed to. Now, whether there was any changes. .. I did not believe there was. I was not one of those who said those words were tampered with or distorted in some way. I did not, very honestly . . . maybe sometimes I am too bloody honest. But that was my understanding. The terminology that was used was my understanding of that particular section.

Mr. Manly: Thank you very much. My second question relates to agenda items for the coming conference. You mentioned that among more and more of the First Nations, the bilateral process is becoming a priority. How do you see that being handled as an agenda item, or do you see it as an agenda item or should it be handled in some other way? What other agenda items do you feel require priority at the next First Ministers’ Conference?

Chief Ahenakew: First of all, the agenda itself. We are not prepared this time around to… I hope somebody suggests,

[Page 25]

maybe we will, that we remove, at least for some time, the TV cameras, because we are not prepared to sit there and make political points across the country. We want to sit there to make sure that we make some real, substantive progress.

The bilateral process that we are talking about I do not think needs to be on the agenda. I think all we have to do is get it operational. Get it moving. I know we are organizing for it. I know we are well on the way and all we have to do is get people moving on it. I think that is very important. I do not think we need to discuss it at the First Ministers’ Conference. I think that can all be worked out with the officials’ conference or officials’ meetings, workshops. But certainly I think that is not even necessary. I think we can agree to operationalize the bilateral process very easily.

As for the priority agenda items, certainly the aboriginal title itself must be discussed. We must reach some kind of an understanding on how we are going to deal with that, if we cannot agree, at that next conference.

I think the whole question of aboriginal and treaty rights has to be a priority. We have to start the process of identification if that is the way we are going to go. And I think, third or fourth, there is the matter of Indian government. That has to be the crux of this whole relationship between the First Nations and the rest of Canada. I think those four items are extremely important. There are two others that were suggested by this new office. Do you remember what they are? Indian government, title, treaties, aboriginal rights . . . and the whole question of equality—I think we have to discuss that. I know this new office would want to discuss that further because of the controversy that took place after the accord was signed and, after that, scrutinized. We do not want a repeat of Premier Hatfield the next time around; that is, to sidetrack the real, substantive issues by this whole equality rights issue.

I am not for one moment saying that it is not important; it is very important, but we have to be consistent. I appeared before you people, this is the fourth time, and I said to you that the whole question of equality of rights, the whole question of status . . . —citizenship, if you will—of the First Nations must be determined by the First Nations. I cannot over emphasize the importance of that very issue. I think that for that reason the whole question of equality, the equality issue, must be understood and discussed.

I hate people calling me a racist, a sexist and everything else. I just received a phone call from an international press from Montreal this afternoon, and that was what it was:

[Page 26]

Section 12.(1)(b) of the Indian Act. I just about tore my bloody hair off. That is not the issue, darn it. All we have to decide, all we have to agree to, is… Look, Indian governments, that is your jurisdiction, your responsibility; correct it in the meantime and we will do away with all the discriminatory legislation that exists, not only on the women but the children and Indian men.

Let us make legislation that is going to really work, that is going to pull together not only the Indian nations but everybody else in this country. I am getting a little tired of defending, so to speak, the positions of the First Nations, which have been adopted very clearly—and I think very reasonably and justifiably. I think they are accurate; I think they are proper. Certainly, I think that is the way we have to go.

You know, you would not allow somebody else to come and tell you who you are. I have said that. It is a very emotional issue which we can resolve very easily. We can have the best Constitution in the world—the greatest—the best legislation regarding the First Nations, but if it does not work, if we cannot make it work, if there is something wrong with it, then it is no good. So let us not bother doing cosmetic changes; let us do it properly. Let us take some time.

Mr. Manly: You say you do not want the next conference to be sidetracked. Have you any suggestions as to how it should be structured so that the agenda items you identified here— aboriginal title, treaty rights, Indian government—so that those items will receive attention? Have you any suggestions as to how the conference should be structured to make sure that it stays on those issues?

Chief Ahenakew: That is a very difficult question. I cannot tell, for example, those Indian nation members who they should be talking to and who they should be going to for the many problems they face. Nor can I tell the provincial governments or the federal government who their delegation should be. But certainly it would help if somehow the first nations could be given the proper hearing, the proper status, to represent the views of the Indian nations of the country. That would be the answer. Then we would certainly prevent the Hatfield manoeuvres and others like that. Man, that guy is—I do not know what he is. Is he a Canadian, by the way? I say that with a lot of concern. The guy side-tracked very nicely and some of us got sucked in, because we could not let that person get away with what he was trying to do. I think I would like to stay away from that premier. Anyway, carry on with your questions.

Mr. Manly: I never mentioned the name. Do you feel that having separate tracks, as you mentioned earlier, would help you in dealing with your specific agenda items? Do you feel

[Page 27]

that when all three groups, the Inuit, the Metis and the First Nations are included in a general conference such as this it makes it much more difficult to deal specifically with the specific agenda concerns of any of them?

Chief Ahenakew: Absolutely. In the area of Indian government, the views and aspirations we have on Indian government—what it should look like, what it should do, the authorities it should have… are definitely different from those of the other groups. That is one area where we can all agree, I am sure, including the aboriginal groups. The degree am certain, because I have discussed this with the other aboriginal groups already. We can all agree that, yes, we should have a one-track mind in that area. Secondly, the area of treaties, for example, is another that is clearly different from the others. As to aboriginal title, I believe they have the same concerns and the same objectives we have. Aboriginal rights, to a large degree, are the same. But the environment is different, the whole regional diversity comes into play as well. So you are dealing with a number of factors that require some real discussion and some real airing out.

Mr. Manly: In terms of structuring this, would you suggest that there be separate preliminary meetings between the Assembly of First Nations and the federal government to Reach basic decisions, and then that these be brought together With any other accords that are reached with the Métis or Inuit, and they would all be ratified together at the First Ministers’ Conference? Is that the kind of process you are envisioning?

Chief Ahenakew: That is precisely what we began with when I first entered the picture 14 months ago. It was that the bilateral process between the federal government and the Indian nations of the country should be established so that they could deal with outstanding or unfinished business. That is precisely what we were pursuing. But because of changing circumstances and pressures and everything else, we knew that if we did not participate in the whole constitutional process somebody else was going to do it for us. That would have been a contradiction of the direction of the chiefs—we would speak for ourselves, we would speak in our own right, and so on. We were caught in a bind where we could not display inconsistencies. But I think if we were to talk to them, at least in the initial stages…let us just try it and see how that works.

I remember sending observers to the first working group meeting held on October 14 in Winnipeg, with officials, deputy ministers, and leaders of the aboriginal groups. There was a hell of a battle. The agenda was about 50 miles long and there

[Page 28]

was a whole host of things being discussed which in no way could have been dealt with at the ministerial meeting or the First Ministers’ Conferences. So the screening process began. We were still observers, we were still watching very closely. When we finally decided to participate, we said: Look, we are not going to be sucked into the agenda items that have been developed. We were going to introduce and advance our own, which is what we did, and I believe we were successful in advancing the Indian agenda, because we believed Canada needed us very, very badly at that constitutional conference. I believe Canada still needs us a lot more than we need Canada, as a matter of fact, if I can be so bold as to say that, at that constitutional conference. I believe it is imperative that we find some solutions as we move forward.

Mr. Manly: Do you get the sense that the federal government is open to that kind of bilateral process and is moving towards it for the next constitutional conference?

Chief Ahenakew: No, to be very open, I have not seen that initiative taking shape. It has been discussed more or less in an off-the-cuff or an afterthought type of thing. But it has been the multilateral process this new office has been charged with, and therefore that is their priority, although they say the bilateral process will also take effect. But I have not seen any real push to get the bilateral process moving. I have not seen that. It has not been demonstrated to me yet. I am pressing for it, and I hope this will be done shortly, because time is just rolling along and the next thing we know, we are back to where we started; and this time it is going to be a lot tougher all around, for every party. In my opinion it is going to be a lot tougher this time around, because people got the first taste of a conference like this, particularly ourselves. We have learned a lot from it, and we are grateful for that learning experience. But we are not going to continue to learn; we are now going to try to resolve many of these outstanding matters.

How we do it is again subject to discussion and agreement. If we propose to move bilaterally, fine; remembering always, though, that a multilateral process must take place at some point and the dates and the years have pretty been well mapped out. We agreed with that and we will stick with that.

Mr. Manly: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Manly. The next questioner is Mr. Dave Nickerson.

Mr. Nickerson: I have two brief questions, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Ahenakew, you stress the need for separate streaming, separate tracks to be taken by the Indian, Metis and Inuit people. Am I to understand that it would be your preference for not one conference to be held, as envisaged in the motion

[Page 29]

we have before us, but rather three conferences? Would that be your preference?

Chief Ahenakew: You sure believe in asking tough questions; but I am going to be just as blunt in my answer as you are blunt in your question.

Yes, that would be my preference. That would certainly allow for a wide-open discussion, where you are not considering other interests of the dialogue; you are there, you are very, very clear as to what it is you are striving for; you will just move forward and you will do whatever it is you have to do. I think first of all a dialogue would be a lot more rapid, and I think a lot more progress could be made. But we are realistic. We know what the Constitution says. We know what the process is now. Therefore we have to find a way to accommodate that process; but at the same time, not at the expense of great compromises; not at the expense of abandoning our own objectives, our own ideologies.

So I am not sure how long and how far the constitutional process is going to go on—whether it is going to go on till 1987 remains to be seen, in my opinion—and secondly, how rapid progress is going to be made.

Mr. Nickerson: My second question. On previous occasions when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been asked why is not an amendment made today to the Indian Act so that both males and females should be treated equally, the answer has always been that if we did that with the stroke of a pen today, because of the rapid expansion in band membership which would follow, there would be a great demand for additional land for reserves. I am thinking of the situation in southern Canada, not the part of the country where I come from where the land is owned by the federal Crown at the present time. If this supposition of the minister were correct, then obviously a number of difficulties would be created because the land surrounding reserves in southern Canada is generally held by a province or by private individuals. So my question to Dr. Ahenakew is: Would the provisions of the motion we have before us, where equality is to be granted to men and women, as I am sure we all would like it to be, is this going to give rise to a demand for new land to be incorporated in reserves?

Chief Ahenakew: This is a just society in Canada, according to the Canadians, and some extreme injustices have been done to one segment of that society. It seems to me that if there is to be any correction, any action to now restore some semblance of justice, it is going to mean land. It is going to mean additional programs. It is going to mean a whole host of things. But one thing you have to remember as well, I think, is simply that the government is waiting for our blessing to change 12.1(b) specifically, but we are not going to give that blessing. It is their law. They made it, unjust as it is, and I think they knew

[Page 30]

that. Trudeau can say, do not blame me for what my forefathers did. But the fact of the matter is that this country and this government, or any government, is based on tradition, is based on honour, is based on history. Therefore, if the Indian Act has created a lot of injustices as a result of government action, then let government action correct that.

We are not going to be used as a people, to say, yes, go ahead and change your legislation. We are not going to be sucked into things like that. Even though that would be the way to go in the eyes of Canadians and in the eyes of the press, in the end they would say that finally the Indians of this country have recognized their Indian women as having the same rights as they do. Well, we have always recognized that. As I said right in front of this committee, as far as the AFN is concerned there is no such thing as a non-status Indian. They are status. But because of that piece of legislation they were made non-status, which is heck of a crime in itself. Therefore, our policy is clear on that very issue.

If it means more land, if you take the whole land entitlement question not only in the prairie provinces but in other areas as well, that was another terrible mistake, made over 100 years ago in some cases, and now we are asked to let bygones be bygones. I do not think anyone in his right mind could do that, not when we have such a vast country as Canada. If we are going to put in Indian government and self-determination becomes a reality for us, if there is hope to gain our self-determination within this country, then obviously we need the land and the resources to do that. And that is what this whole thing is about.

Mr. Nickerson: But it is surely recognized that if the resolution we have before us becomes part of the Canadian Constitution, 12.1(b) of the Indian Act automatically becomes ultra vires. It would have no further standing so you would, therefore, have no further control over that particular change to the Indian Act. I seem to get from your response that you felt that this particular provision of the Indian Act might stand. My opinion would be that it would not stand if this became part of the Constitution. Perhaps you could elaborate on that a little. But you have confirmed the suspicion, so to speak, of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that if this does become part of the Constitution then the Government of Canada, and indeed the governments of the provinces, will have to address the question of the demand resulting out of this, more land and extensions to reserves.

Chief Ahenakew: Let me just take that. The Indian Act, as a piece of legislation, as far as I am concerned, as of this moment the thing should never have existed and should not now. Constitution or no Constitution, three years down the

[Page 31]

road the Indian Act is going to be ultra vires anyway, and not just for the women, but that they will run the men and everything else that goes along with it. So I keep reminding Canadians and the First Nations that the days of the Indian Act are absolutely numbered and the sooner we can do it, the better it is going to be all around. For that matter, the whole of Indian Affairs’ days are numbered. I guess that is maybe why we are having a lot of problems with them now; they want to hang on. Those things are numbered, and in Canada we might as well recognize that this is a fact of life and start working, and not in the devolution process but in the evolutionary process.

The Chairman: Mr. Oberle is next.

Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Ahenakew and your delegation, for appearing before us and giving us your thoughts in regard to this resolution. I know you followed the debate in the House today, and I agree with you that what was said today by all spokesmen in the debate was refreshing and is new and encouraging. There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that the conference has achieved a lot in that sense. There is a much broader, much better understanding in the country of what you are trying to achieve and what you are trying to do.

I want to just ask this because I thought there was an inherent contradiction in what you said with respect to the openness of the process. You said that you want to not just enlighten the members of Parliament but all of Canada, and the process should be wide open so that Canadians can look in. But then a little later you said that the cameras should be out of the room for some of the discussions. You see, it works both ways; if the camera is in while you are making your statement, that certainly gets the message across, but there is no guarantee that there will not be another Hatfield at the conference table the next time with some other trick. So it slices both ways. Certainly the Prime Minister got certain messages across, certain subtle messages, that were not so much . . .

Chief Ahenakew: At least every morning.

Mr. Oberle: Yes, and consistent with the spirit that was part of his opening statement.

So which would you prefer? Would you prefer to take your chances with an open process or do you think there is need for some private discussion?

Chief Ahenakew: I believe we have an awful lot of work to do in a face-to-face communication with Canadians. It is not that I have any distrust or mistrust of the press, but the press has not been good to the Indian nations of the country. Although I think they are becoming sensitive, and I am grateful for that, nevertheless I think in some cases . . . Politicians are politicians, particularly premiers and the Prime Minister. They are in the public eye all the time and they tend

[Page 32]

to carry that on with the substantive matters we want to discuss. I think if we can play a middle ground, okay, have the press there; but at the same time, do not allow the press to dictate what the attitudes of this country are going to be. We have to do that. That is what I was referring to; and I am glad you asked that question, because I think . . .

Mr. Oberle: We all suffer from that dilemma. When I go home in the evening sometimes and turn on the news, half of it has to do with our work here. I ask myself what meeting these people attended, because I was there and that is not what I read out of it. But you suffer that as a free and open society. The press has the right to interpret what happens in their own way.

So for that reason, the process with the cameras, where it is your voice and your face and where it is up to the people to make their own interpretation… As long as the telecast is fair, that they do not go half-way through your speech and then interpret the rest, I think that is the way. I would not wish personally . . . A lot of Indian leaders, including yourself, came off very well, from the feedback I have, from the people who watched it in my constituency and throughout the country. A lot of the Indian leaders made a name for themselves, because it was the first time they were on national television and they stated their case very well.

So I think that particular process should be carried on, because I think it was very helpful. Would you agree that cameras should be there at all times while the discussions are . . . ?

Chief Ahenakew: With certain conditions. I believe the press has the right to open expression as long as it is accurate. I do not think anybody has the right to distort . . .

Mr. Oberle: No, that is right.

Chief Ahenakew: —or to express their views as to how they interpret a certain issue. I am not against the press; believe me, I am not. But at the same time, I am a firm believer in accuracy. I am a firm believer in making sure the dialogue that goes on is, in fact, understood by both parties, even if there are just two people.

That is what I am talking about. Yes, I believe in freedom of the press; but at the same time, I have freedoms, but there are limitations like everything else. There are boundaries, and I think those things have to be respected. We will discuss that when the next constitutional conference comes about and see how we can manage the whole situation.

Mr. Oberle: Let me know how you make out, because it is something we are very concerned with all the time, every one of us.

[Page 33]

I want to ask you a couple of questions, because I was interested in your other comments insisting or inviting Parliament to become more involved and parliamentarians, in the process, to become better informed.

Do you think the work of the special committee is an indication that Parliament intends to become better informed and involved to a greater degree in the work leading to the recognition of Indian rights?

Chief Ahenakew: Absolutely. The special committee that was formed last year was one for which we have nothing but praise, really, not because we know they are going to write what we think they are going to write but because of the manner in which they went out to hear, right from the people, what it was all about.

I think the special committee really threw the doors open to parliamentarians for that type of involvement. 1 think that is a great undertaking and some real success, regardless of what the report looks like; and I have no idea of what it is going to be like. We hope, naturally, those expressions of the Indian nations across the country will be reflected in that report. How it is reflected, of course, is in the hands of parliamentarians, and I suppose to a large degree, in the hands of the federal government.

So this whole parliamentary process that took place on Indian government and other matters of that kind is certainly one which has changed the relationship, has changed the many misconceptions of the Indians as a people in this country.

I think I can truthfully and accurately say that the work of the special committee on Indian government has really done a lot to educate parliamentarians. I am sure you people report to your caucuses periodically and I am sure you pass on the messages that you hear across the country. Whether your caucuses agree with them or not is not the point. The point is that these people are being informed. The point is that your colleagues are not only being informed, but very bluntly told, I am sure, of the real situation of this country and the manner in which the Indian people want to proceed from now on.

Mr. Oberle: You cannot help dealing with all aspects of Indian self-government without coming in head-on conflict with constitutional matters and with treaty obligations and with the trust responsibility and the whole relationship between Indian nations and the federal government. The report of the committee, as you know, will be finished this fall. Do you see it as part of the agenda of the next constitutional conference, particularly if you like the recommendations in the report? Would that be a help to you in going into the next conference?

Chief Ahenakew: Regardless of what the report says, what recommendations are made, it will definitely have an influence on the next round of constitutional discussions. There is no doubt about that in my mind. Certainly the premiers and their

[Page 34]

governments are going to be very much aware of those recommendations when they come out in the fall. They are going to be studying them; and I am sure parliamentarians here are going to be looking at those very, very closely. I believe, at least if I understand politics accurately, the report, when it is written, is going to try to reflect those things you can live with and those things we cannot. I hope we will tell the story accurately; but I sense that politics being the way they are, the whole report will be one of a middle-of-the-road type of thing. Okay, that is fine. I will not be satisfied with it; but nevertheless it is a heck of a lot better than we have had in the past.

So I encourage you to write the report the way it should be written. But I have no control, nor do I want to influence you in not considering other factors of the whole thing. I am sure you will. But at the same time, if we are going to change the democratic order of this country, let us do it. Let us not pussyfoot around. Let us meet it straight on. Some parliamentarians may suffer as a result of that, but I am sure they would bloody well feel better afterwards.

Mr. Oberle: Because the Assembly of First Nations is represented on the committee—and I do not want to take away from tonight’s discussions, but I know you are always willing to come to the committee . . . it would help me to know a little more about what expectations you have about the report. Repeatedly we are confronted with the question of whether we should really make comment on constitutional matters. It is very difficult to comment on and resolve and recommend and anything else without taking the Constitution into account. Is it your expectation that the committee will make some recommendations on the entrenchment of aboriginal treaty rights and titles?

Chief Ahenakew: Yes. You know, first and foremost you are dealing with the First Nations’ Parliament relations, or Canadian relations. You are dealing with the matter of Indian government, and that is one of the top priorities of the First Nations in the constitutional discussions. Therefore, I do not see any way that you can get away from getting yourselves involved in the whole constitutional process. I just do not see how you can do that. I do not see how you can separate the two.

The other thing that we are talking about—and which is going to be an agenda item at some point when we are discussing Indian government, I suppose—is the whole question of the Indian-Canada fiscal relationship. That is another matter that is crucial to Indian government. So you are going to be dealing with that as well; you are going to make certain recommendations about that. So all these things you are dealing with very directly are constitutionally related. There is just no other way.

Mr. Oberle: Incidentally, one of the interesting aspects with regard to the committee’s work is that the Coalition of First Nations, which has chosen not to participate in the constitutional process, has chosen to appear before the committee. Their input will be reflected in the report as well; as you

[Page 35]

probably know, it is not at all at variance with your input to any great extent. So that, again, will lend additional strength to your position at the conference table. I do not want to prejudge what the report might read, but if it says certain things that you, yourself, espouse, it would indicate to the other participants that it is a general view throughout the country, and is even a view of those who have chosen not to participate in the process.

That is a very, very critical question, with which the committee has to wrestle throughout: Are you sovereign First Nations that do not wish to join Confederation, or do not see themselves as part. of Confederation? And if you are that, why would you participate in the constitutional process? If there is one thing you can do for us, as parliamentarians, in helping us to get the message across to our colleagues and our constituents, it is important to have it repeated over and over again that it is the intention of Indian people to become part of Confederation and join the partnership, to become Canadians. I think that is your view, and that is the message we will have to get across.

Chief Ahenakew: You see, you are going to hear two things, I am sure—two things of which I am absolutely certain—one of which is that we have a special relationship with Canada and we want to maintain that relationship. Therefore, there is no real role for the provinces to play in this. That is one of the prime objections. Secondly, we are Indian nations and we want to be treated as Indian nations, not as an amalgamation of all the native groups of the country. You are going to hear that one as well. I have been hearing that, and they have been very consistent in that area.

As for the question of total sovereignty, we had that at one point, but because of the various arrangements and legislation and practices, that has been eliminated. It is only in the last several years that we have said: Look, we have some degree of sovereignty on our lands. If we can reject completely provincial government legislation and practices and so forth, then obviously that means there is a degree of sovereignty on those Indian lands, but within Confederation. I am sure they are going to tell you that as well—at least most of them; I cannot speak for all of them, because I am not supposed to in the first place. Nevertheless, I am saying for the record that I think these three points are going to come forward. I cannot tell you what questions to ask or how you should structure your comments and so forth, but it would also be very helpful for me, for the committee, to just come straight out forward and ask these questions that are going through your minds that you often wonder about. I think you will find that the very things that the First Nations have been saying are reflective of what they are going to say now. It is just that we do not have the resources to communicate as effectively as we must.

[Page 36]

Nevertheless, we have always said in the national office that the doors are wide open for anyone. We have always said that we will try to struggle for those and obtain those matters they are concerned with so that accommodations are made for them to present their case. But I think they also realize that it is only through the constitutional process, the multilateral process, if you will, that amendments are going to take place. But as I said, I am pretty certain they want to deal with these matters bilaterally until such time they reach that point where perhaps constitutional amendments are required and agreed to.

Mr. Oberle: And at that point you would call in the provinces and not until then.

Chief Ahenakew: That is true.

Mr. Oberle: So you accept that the provinces will have a role to play in making the changes to the Constitution, but you do not necessarily agree that they should be involved in negotiating the changes.

Chief Ahenakew: That is true. I am not going to make a long speech. Yes, you are right.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you, Mr. Oberle. Are there any further questions? Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: During the speech made in the House today by the Minister of Justice, he referred to the fact that he had received letters from the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Committee on National Issues, the Native Council of Canada and the Metis National Council, all agreeing to the presentation of the accord reached at the First Ministers’ Conference approving of that resolution.

I asked him if he would table those letters in the House and submit them to this committee. I believe he sent the four letters to you as chairman. I wonder if we could attach those to the minutes of tonight’s record so that they are made completely public.

The Chairman: That is right, Mr. Allmand.

The minister’s letter refers to five letters but there are, in fact, four: the Native Council of Canada, the Metis National Council, the Assembly of First Nations and the . . .

Mr. Allmand: The Inuit Committee on National Issues.

The Chairman: —Inuit Committee on National Issues. Correct.

You have heard the request from Mr. Allmand that these letters be appended to today’s Minutes of Proceedings. Is that agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand, further comments? Any further questions?

Mr. Allmand: No.

The Chairman: No further questions. Dr. Ahenakew, thank you very much for your appearance. We realize it was on short

[Page 37]

notice but you responded very quickly to our invitation and we thank you for that. The input you provided this evening has been of a very positive nature and that. is recognized by all members of the standing committee. Thank you for being with us.

Chief Ahenakew: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that perhaps this will be the last for a while. When we meet again, I hope the open dialogue and the direct manner in which we treated each other will carry on, will continue. I hope that you will feel free and compelled, at some point, to ask me a few questions whenever you are unsure about anything that may crop up regarding the First Nations.

I want to thank all of you, for the fourth time, I guess, for the manner in which you have treated me and my officials every time we appeared before you. It has been one of construction, if you will. It has been not only a learning experience but certainly one which has changed the many attitudes, 1 think, as well as changed the manner in which we deal with Indian affairs in this country. For that I am very grateful.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir. Before adjournment, I will just remind hon. members that the standing committee will reconvene at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. The Coalition of First Nations will be heard, followed by the Union of New Brunswick Indians. As well, the Metis National Council has been invited to appear, although we have not yet heard back from them. Should they be available, they would be the third organization to be heard tomorrow afternoon.

Then this committee will meet tomorrow evening to hear the Native Council of Canada and the Inuit Committee on National Issues, as well as the Native Women’s Association of Canada. Our Vice-Chairman, Rene Gingras, will be in the Chair for those meetings tomorrow.

Mr. Gingras: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Are there any further items of business before we adjourn? Seeing none, I adjourn this meeting until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.

[Page A:1]

APPENDIX “INDN-13”

PRESIDENT
LOUIS (SMOKEY) BRUYERE

VICE-PRESIDENT
BILL WILSON

SECRETARY-TREASURER
PATRICIA GEORGE

April 29, 1983

Hon. Yvon Pinard, PC, MP,
President of the Privy Council,
Room 215-S,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
KIA OA6

Dear M. Pinard:

This letter is further to correspondence we have exchanged in the past and the numerous dealings we have had with you and your colleagues regarding the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution. The process has been long and we have appreciated the efforts that have been put forth by all parties concerned to resolve this long-standing struggle between the native peoples of Canada and various governments. We thank you for your past co-operation and hope we can count on its continuation.

We believe some gains were made at the March 1983 First Ministers’ Conference and we wish to see these confirmed as soon as possible by the proposed resolution referred to above. We urge you and your colleagues to expedite passage of this resolution so that, at the very least, the limited

[Page A:2]

gains made in March can be built upon in the on-going process that this resolution will guarantee.

As you know, we are not completely satisfied with the wording of the Accord, particularly as it relates to the equality clause, but this is something we can work out at future meetings between our groups and the federal and provincial governments. We think it is very important that the momentum built up at the First Ministers’ Conference in March and the heightened public awareness and concern for the rights of aboriginal peoples not be allowed to dissipate by a seeming lack of follow-through on your part or on ours. Speedy passage of the enabling resolution would restore the initiatives.

There is much work to be done yet and we are anxious to co-operate with you in doing it. A significant and important step that could be taken by you and your colleagues would be a quick enactment of the proposed resolution.

Thank you for your anticipated co-operation and support.

Yours sincerely,

Louis (Smokey) Bruyere,
President

cc: Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada,
Mr. Charlie Watt, Chairman, Inuit Committee on National Issues,
Dr. David Ahenakew, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations,
Hon. Erik Nielsen, PC, MP, Leader of the Opposition,
Hon. Ed Broadbent, PC, MP, Leader of the NDP,
Mr. Doug Lewis, MP, Opposition House Leader,
Mr. Ian Deans, NDP House Leader

[Page A:3]

April 25, 1983

Prime Minister Trudeau
House of Commons
Parliament Hill
OTTAWA, Ontario

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

We look forward to an early and speedy passage of the amendments to the Constitution Act agreed to by the Accord of March last. Your offer to the Progressive Conservative Party to amend the Constitution with respect to property rights if accomplished within one day is interesting from the point of view of speedy passage, not necessarily as to content. Borrowing from that, we would like to solicit the support of yourself and Mr. Pinard to reach an all-Party agreement for the passage of the amendment within the period of one day. As it is crucial to begin proper planning for the several-year Constitutional process, it is crucial that the amendment be passed prior to the summer recess.

We look forward to an early response.

Yours Sincerely,

Clem Chartier
National Representative

c.c.: Mr. Yvon Pinard, House Leader
Mr. Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice
Mr. Serge Joyal, Secretary of State
Senator Austin, Minister of State
Mr. John Munro, Department of Indian Affairs & Northern Development
Mr. Eric Neilson, Leader, P.C.
Mr. Ed Broadbent, Leader, NDP

CC/gc

[Page A:4]

April 26, 1983.

The Honourable Mark MacGuigan,
Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.

Dear Mr. Minister:

After reviewing the text of the document, “The Proposed Resolution to authorize His Excellency the Governor General to issue a proclamation respecting amendments to the Constitution of Canada” as submitted to us in amended form by the Deputy Minister of Justice on April 15, 1983, we would take this opportunity to express our support for the Resolution.

After various last minute conversations and communiques regarding amendments to the proposed text with both federal and provincial representatives, we note we are now satisfied with the next including the changes of a technical nature. In particular we note our satisfaction with the re-working of the french text of S. 35 (3). the clause respecting land claims agreements.

We would however wish to confirm that there will be three more constitutional conferences over the next five years, including the one proposed in the Accord to be held in 1984 and the two provided for in proposed S. 37 (1).

We would also note that our concerns remain relating to the equality of rights of the aboriginal peoples. (S. 35(4)) However in view of the urgency of passing the amending legislation through both the federal and provincial legislatures we will pursue amendments to this section and other outstanding issues during the ongoing process.

We would therefore urge you and your cabinet collegues to expedite the introduction of the “Proposed Resolution” into the House of Commons. An early passage of these first series of amendments will create the momentum necessary to make upcoming conferences a success.

Yours very truly,

Charlie Watt,
Co-Chairman,
ICNI.

jd

[Page A:5]

May 18, 1983

The Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
Room 311-S
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Prime Minister:

In my closing remarks at the First Ministers Conference on 16 March 1983, I made it clear that the Chiefs of the First Nations, to whom I am accountable, would have to ratify my signature to the Accord just as you and the provincial premiers would have to refer the Accord to your respective legislatures for approval.

I am pleased to inform you that at the IVth Assembly of First Nations (16-18 May 1983, Winnipeg, Manitoba) the Chiefs ratified the Accord.

In the extensive debate that preceded the vote of approval, the Chiefs expressed many concerns.

It is my intention to bring these concerns to your attention forthwith because they must be addressed and resolved prior to FMC-1.

By their ratification, the Chiefs signified their intention to participate in the First Ministers Conferences indicated in the Accord. Such participation will be consistent with our perception of the spirit and intent of the Accord, which is that the Conferences will result in the recognition and protection of our aboriginal title, and our aboriginal and treaty rights in the basic law of our land.

[Page A:6]

At the same time, as I mentioned in my letter to you of 6 May 1983, in the establishment of the Office of Aboriginal and Constitutional Affairs, it is essential that a bilateral process component be ensured.

Since you and the provincial premiers have stated your desires to resolve the problems of our constitutional relationship, I hope that Parliament and the provincial legislatures will, as soon as possible, approve the resolutions required by Article 4 of the Accord so that the Constitution Act 1982 may be amended expeditiously.

Therefore, I have taken the liberty of sharing this letter with the leaders of the Opposition and of the New Democratic Party as well as with the provincial premiers.

Yours sincerely,

David Ahenakew
National Chief

cc. The Honourable Mark MacGuigan
The Honourable John Munro
The Honourable Serge Joyal
The Honourable Erik Nielsen
The Honourable Edward Broadbent
All Provincial Premiers

WITNESSES