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.

Questions:

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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...
Post a Comment
Read more

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...
1 comment
Read more

Labels

Show more