As National Chief, I have a responsibility to advocate for and support the assertion of treaty rights and aboriginal title and rights of first nation governments. So I look to the leaders of such a first nations government, who are suggesting that our people have not been at the table.
We've not helped to shape in a real way how the legislation is drafted, delivered, executed, or implemented. It relegates first nations to an advisory role when in fact, as I've said repeatedly in my submission, this is about recognizing the jurisdiction of first nations governments. I alluded to the fact that one of the implications of non-recognition of first nations jurisdiction is resulting conflict about recognition of the application.
It's not just this act. You could take fisheries or any other acts out there. I just came from a court case on the Fisheries Act and its application in first nations, and the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the recognition of our right to those fisheries.
So I think there is a question--it's left to legal scholars, which I am not--around constitutionality and the rule of law application of statutes. But principle here is about a shared interest and respect for the environment and for the protection of species, as other panellists have said here.
The reason I also embrace the notion of this country moving towards embracing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is because of the need for recognition of a government-to-government process.
We look at the act to see if it reflects that. Our suggestion here is that it must be strengthened in that respect. So I think these are constructive suggestions that are being made about ways in which that can occur. But underlying that is really the term that's been used here, which is a respect for the relationship.
I suggest very strongly that the original treaties, as was alluded to in the submission, should continually forge the foundation upon which we build our working relationships. As National Chief, I not only see the need to recognize first nations jurisdiction, but I would suggest legislation like this results in conflict between first nations, and between first nations and other jurisdictions.
The point about the park is an excellent one. It's another example of an externally imposed set of conditions, whether it's legislative or, in this case, a park, and how those conditions have impacted the involvement of the first nations jurisdictions to the point of even accessing a food source. I get these phone calls, as other leaders do in the far north, particularly when people are trying to put food on the table.
So I think the question is not only what you've asked around the application of jurisdiction or whether one group submits to it or not. I think it's a much bigger conversation than that.