I'm going to speak more on the process as the question. The bill contemplates that the minister will make reports to the House of Commons and will consult with those who are willing and with “organizations”. Then I go back to the point that the organizations are not the proper authorities to be dealing with legislation that affects the treaty rights of the first nations peoples.
The individual members of the first nations hold the treaty rights, not a government-funded AFN. That in itself is kind of problematic, because if the AFN cannot play ball with the Government of Canada, it does not get funded and it does not exist. For us, that's a fundamental flaw right off the bat.
As far as our nation is concerned, Sawridge First Nation has already sent in our band council resolution, our BCR, over a decade ago, stating that the AFN does not represent our interests. How can one organization represent the interests of 612 first nations recognized in Canada? We are all at different states. The Sawridge First Nation receives less than 10% of its funding from the Governments of Canada and Alberta. Ours is own-source funding. We understand economic development, but economic development is not an answer. It's a tool that can be used to come to the answers.
I wonder if the committee has contemplated section 52 of the Canadian Constitution. Section 52 states that anything Parliament does that conflicts with our rights is “invalid”, so right off the top, is Bill C-428 invalid? It's going to affect our legislative powers at the Sawridge First Nation, which we have exercised. We have our matrimonial properties act. We have our governance act. We have our financial accountability act. These acts were written by the people and passed by the people, for which I hold the funds, and I spend their funds on their behalf. How much more transparent can I be?
My salary is set by the people, not by chief and council. I've taken that off the plate as the Indian Act contemplates, so I cannot pay myself half a million dollars and be at a Prime Minister's level of pay. My pay is set by the members themselves. Nothing could be more democratic.
Is it worth the legal costs of challenging this law in the courts of Canada on its constitutionality? Is it really worth the Canadian taxpayers' dollars to go through all that just to have it thrown out in court, which I believe would not be a hard task for first nations to do? It might even get thrown out on a judicial review, but again, there would be taxpayers' dollars getting spent on something that should not have come forward.
The Indian Act is not the problem. The problem is the relationship. If we had a healthy, respectful relationship between our nation and the Government of Canada, I wouldn't have to be here today. We would be under self-government legislation. We would be looking after ourselves, which is all that we all want to do. Every human in this world wants to control their destiny. That's all we want to do as first nations: take control of that destiny.
We want to get out of this paternalistic legislation called the Indian Act, which was not spoken of at the time of the signing of Treaty No. 8 in 1899. Nobody said to any of the original signatories there, “Oh, by the way, by signing this treaty of sharing, you'll be subjugated to the Indian Act, in which the minister in Ottawa is going to be controlling your destiny, and we will be taking your children away and putting them in residential schools”. That was a double whammy for our nation, because we suffered a flu epidemic in the early 1900s in which a majority of the adults perished. There were far more children than adults and they were all taken off to residential school, and you wonder why there's a loss of culture, a loss of language? That needs to be healed.
But in a true government-to-government relationship, we should be looking at putting together some resources for those who want to.... Look at the investment in the future, as I said earlier. That's one of the fundamental problems that I see with the process. You're ignoring the duly elected officials. You're not allowing us to have a say in what changes these Indian Act provisions will have. Is there a resource to be put in place for when you take away some of these provisions, which, in my example, would allow a member—or maybe it would not allow it, but it would not disallow it—to cut down all the trees and sell them for his own personal profit?
Should there not be something, some transitional phase for some of these, through which we can have our own legislation put in place? Do I need to have an agreement with the RCMP or maybe the Lakeshore Regional Police Service, which is funded by the federal and the provincial government, for the five first nations along the lakeshore to understand our bylaws and be given the authority to actually enforce them? Is there a proper court in which these laws can be heard?
Where are our institutions of governance which we need to control our destiny and to be self-governing? I've been through the Federal Court of Canada. It is not friendly to first nations. There is a fundamental flaw if we go to that court, especially if we're going against the federal government.
Who appoints judges—the first nation chiefs? What are judges sworn to protect? It's the constitution and the laws of Canada. So why would they ever rule in favour of a first nation?
These are the things we need to strive towards.
Thank you.