The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

- 2 - This 1 969 white paper was the catalyst which brought them together with a grea t many organizations and helped them to advance to the leve l of political involve ment i n which they find themselves today. But as they look at the pro- posed charter of right s , they see clauses in it which would have the s~1me eff"ect and which would leave them without rights, without protection and without eve n the basic, minimal recognition which the y have at present. The Prime Minist er (Mr. Trudeau) has promised the native people that they could be participants in all constitutional amendments which concern them. What could possibly concern native people more than the entrenchment of their rights? Yet Indian people were not consulted about the charter of rights. In their absence, a vague clause was -inserted which does violence to their rights. Last week , thP Prime Minister said that as soon as the constitution is brought back to Canada, native rights will be one of the first it ems on the agenda. What hyprocrisy! The Prime Minister knows full well that by placing Indian rights on a 11ost-patriation agenda, he is deny ing these people their last chance t o obtai11 justice.;' Tl1e response of thP Liberals to criticism of the proposed Charter was the introduction of nn amendment replacing section 24 with a new section 25 that reads as fo.llows: "The guaran t ee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of (a) any the may aboriginal, treaty or othe r rights or freed oms that may pertain t o a borig inal peop l es of Canada including any right or freedom that have bee n recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1963; or (b) any o the r rights or freedoms that may exist in Canada." When Jean Chretien appeared b efor e the Special Joint Committee on the Constitutjon to present this amendment, Jim Manly urged him to recognize the "necess ity for having some positive enshrinement of native rights because in spite of your best efforts, you are always working against provincial governments that are very s l ow , if they a r e willing to make any recognition of thes e rights at a ll. So I tl1ink it is abso lu te l y essential that, given the government's historic obli~ation to na live people, that the re be some positive recognition of those . h " ri g t s . Nl)J) Meml)ers also s l1ared tl1 e c oncern of native peoples organizations that in addition to A posit ive affirmation of aboriginal rights, a guarantee was required tl1at ncgol i ;1L i on s to furtl1e.r defin e such rights and settle some of the many (.l t1t st:1 11 t li11 1~ p, rit'v:1nc·cs r)r 11,1.t ivc 1)co11lcs wo,1ld be initiate d at an early dat e . Pc~tt\_r:..__1_L t in~J~~ qliest io11c.~<l tl1 t~ minister of justice on this poi11t: " l) f tilt' tl1rec 1nc1j or nat j ve <)r ga nizations and others from the country suggested tl1c.' c. ' 11t rencl1mct1t of a section that would formalize the Prime Minister's JlO ] i tit·nl commitment to negotiate certain aspects of native relations in C: an i1 <l : 1 • r~ow, ,1s a matter of goc)d fai th why was this not included in the amc11de d 1 . ? " T l ' S() \J l: 100. /3