Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

PECKFORD -- Why can’t the rest of the people in Canada see the Agreement at the same time as the Wet’suwet’en people see the Agreement?

I don’t wish to bore my international readers but our internal situation here in Canada right now is in a state of flux on many fronts but especially Canada’s relationship with our First Nation peoples. So, I have to write on this since many in Canada are confused by what is happening.

It is getting more confusing by the day.

We now are told by our Prime Minister that the Canadian people will not see the newly minted agreement among the three entities -- Federal Government, BC Government on the one hand, and the Wet’suwet’en people on the other -- until the Wet’suwet’en people have had a chance to review it.

This seems strange to me.

Why can’t the rest of the people in Canada see the agreement at the same time as the Wet’suwet’en people see the Agreement?

Since 1982 the status of Aboriginal people as it relates to rights and title over land has been handled by the Supreme Court of Canada. That highest court has been interpreting the meaning of Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. And various decisions have attempted to elaborate on rights and title since then.

One First Nation (the Tsilhquot people) has gained title through this process (2014) and elaboration on what title means is contained in that decision.

So, this new tentative Agreement between Canadian Governments and the Wet’suwet’en people is obviously outside this process.

Some one needs to clarify all of this for the Canadian People.

I am not a lawyer but I was a participant the 1982 Patriation of the Constitution as the First Minister of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. And I have been following the results of the adjudication of Section 35 ever since.


Why cannot the rest of the Canadian people have access to the terms of the Agreement at the same time as the Wet’suwet’en people?

Where does this Agreement stand in relation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions on rights and title with the Aboriginal people?

Doesn’t any Agreement have to be considered and passed or rejected or amended by the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia?

Isn’t any Agreement signed subject to litigation or reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine its constitutionality in light of Section 35 and its interpretation up to now by the Court?

Some might say: go and ask the Prime Minister of Canada or Premier of British Columbia or their Ministers.

I reply: I have tried to do this on other important issues and can never get an answer from the top people. It is always referred to some underling.

It seems top elected government people try to ensure their signature goes on the least amount of correspondence as possible.

Hence, one reason why I set up this blog.

In 1972, Brian Peckford was first elected, as a Progressive Conservative, to the Newfoundland Labrador House of Assembly -- he became Premier at the age of 36, holding the leadership of his party and government from 1979 to 1989.

Since leaving politics, early in 1989, Peckford has conducted public inquires for the governments of British Columbia and Canada, has served on numerous Boards including the CBC, and has been active in public affairs. 

Since 1993, he and his wife Carol have made British Columbia their home; they now live in Parksville, on Vancouver Island. He blogs at Peckford 42.


Popular posts from this blog

THE SIDEWINDER -- Just quit your constant damned whining and do something positive about it

  Living in a democracy is a wonderful thing, but it comes with responsibilities such as voting and being involved. When the dust settled on Saturdays (October 24 th ) BC election, less than two thirds of the eligible voters * took the time to vote - but the loudest bitchers will probably be among the more than one third of voters who sat on their asses and complained about how all politicians are crooks, etc. How many of you constant whiners have ever done anything close to becoming involved; or do you just like sniveling to hear your own voice? Are you one the arseholes who likes to take advantage of everything our democracy has to offer, without ever contributing anything? And I don't want to listen to your crap about paying taxes, blah, blah, blah. There's more to making democracy work than simply voting and then sitting back and let others carry the ball for you. Too many people seem unwilling to get involved - and follow-up - to make sure elected po

AARON GUNN -- He is, at his core, an ideologue, meaning the facts of any particular issue don’t actually matter

Ben Isitt - City Councillor and Regional Director Victoria City Council and its resident-genius Ben Isitt is back with another dumb idea. Introducing a motion to ban the horse-drawn carriages that have coloured Victoria’s downtown streets for decades, calling them “an outdated mode of transportation”. Are you serious?   No one is actually commuting by horse and carriage. They are here for tourists and residents alike to interact with world-class animals and discover the magic and history of our provincial capital. It’s part of what gives Victoria its charm. And the truth is these horses are treated better than anywhere else in the world. They probably live better lives than many British Columbians.   And talk to anyone who works with these horses and they’ll all tell you the exact same thing: this is what the horses love to do. This is what they were bred for and trained for. This is what gives their lives purpose and meaning. But maybe we shouldn’t be su


I have just struggled through Cheryl Ashlie's column ( MacDuff’s Call: A political novice with a sizeable ego ), in the Sept. 22 edition of The Maple Ridge News. To say the least, Ashlie's comments are naive and show just how totally out of touch she has become with political reality. Ashlie lauds the decision of Darryl Plecas to accept John Horgan's invitation to become the Speaker of the House, a move described by almost everyone else as self-serving and a betrayal of the trust of the constituents who voted for him. Ashlie claims Plecas' turncoat move will help provide good governance but in making this claim, she fails to explain how he will achieve this lofty goal.


Show more