Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
On behalf of Saskatchewan's first nations, I begin by acknowledging the elders of the people of the Algonquin territory.
I want to thank the members of Parliament, this talking place, for giving me the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-3. I wish to raise two key points this afternoon.
My first is that Bill C-3 could add more than 45 new registered Indians to the Indian registry. One of the questions I would pose in this discussion is, what are the financial implications of Bill C-3? Where, as here, the government has introduced new legislation, and when it does, then as first nations leaders and citizens alike, we want to know what the proposed amendments, if any, will cost. What is the plan of the government regarding the added costs of bringing on new registrants? I have in mind particularly those costs of providing public services to those new registrants.
My second question relates to the exploratory process. We are concerned with what, as we understand it, the government is proposing. We are concerned about a unilaterally imposed process where government agents would listen to people and collect information, but not show interest in having a healthy, friendly discussion on how to create good respectful relations with treaty first nations.
We hear a lot about reconciliation these days, and reconciliation is a two-way street. We are in favour of a process of consultation to establish good relations, including on the nation-to-nation approach where each first nation decides who belongs, in a future where the Indian Act has been abandoned and in its place we have respectful government-to-government relations based on a treaty relationship. It is now a buzzword in Saskatchewan that we are all treaty people. Treaty first nations are voicing a strong willingness to move beyond the Indian Act to a nation-building approach where each nation exercises its right to decide who belongs. On this, there is broad consensus.
FSIN, through its founding document, the Convention Act of 1982, is one such vehicle proven to provide leadership and direction in building consensus among 74 first nations in the province of Saskatchewan. This has resulted in a number of province-wide initiatives that were developed in cooperation with federal and provincial governments.
Let me return to Bill C-3. Bill C-3 is a response to a court case. The government had to do it. While we agree that an amendment was necessary to maintain the legislative foundation for the current Indian Act registration system, we urge the government to adopt a new approach to the way it develops laws and policies dealing with first nations. As in the case of Bill C-3, the government has historically acted by managing issues or responding to crises, by acting only when forced to do so. We are in favour of a principled approach, a nation-building approach, where each nation decides who belongs in a process of negotiations on the institutions of self-government, respect for the treaties, and doing away with the Indian Act. We would like to see a principled approach, one that focuses on nation building and also on the respect for human rights, including the right of self-determination. Each nation would decide who belongs. Negotiations with first nations are necessary because each nation must be free to decide who belongs to it.
The idea that first nations have a right and are in the best position to decide who belongs has a long history in this Parliament. In 1983, the Penner parliamentary committee report recommended that first nations have the right to decide who belongs, for the purpose of deciding the procedures and institutions of self-government. This approach was reflected in the final report in 1996 of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. I have here Mr. Paul Chartrand, a commissioner from the royal commission. It recommended the nation-to-nation approach based on the human right of self-determination.
Several United Nations treaty bodies responsible for overseeing Canada's performance of its obligations under human rights treaties have, since 1998, urged Canada to adopt the RCAP approach as a domestic application of the right of self-determination. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples declares the human right of self-determination of indigenous peoples, and that includes the right to decide who belongs to a people.
You are not going to get consensus on a definition of “Indian” within the Indian Act. The nation-to-nation approach is realistic. It proposes that each nation would be free to decide in a process of negotiations with the federal government. This is what we need, instead of another exploratory process.
Thank you very much.