Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning. Today I'm appearing by video conference as the Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, as the Saskatchewan regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations, for which I carry the national portfolio for treaties. I want to thank you and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for accommodating my request to provide evidence.
Our federation here in Saskatchewan represents 74 first nations. I always take the time to acknowledge the Denesuline; the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota tribes; the Swampy Cree, the Woodland Cree, and the Plains Cree; and Anishinabek and the Saulteaux Nakawe nations. Our federation is committed to honouring the spirit and intent of treaty as well as the promotion, protection, and implementation of the treaty promises made more than a century ago.
While I'm currently chief of the FSIN and Saskatchewan regional chief for the Assembly of First Nations, I was also raised on the Little Black Bear First Nation in the Treaty 4 territory, a treaty territory that spans southern Saskatchewan, southwestern Manitoba, and a small piece of southern Alberta, of approximately 75,000 square miles. I have been an elected leader at all levels of first nations organizations, from FSIN chief to the AFN regional chief, tribal council representative, assistant tribal council representative, as well as being the chief and councillor of the Little Black Bear First Nation.
At the same time it has been my honour to have learned from more than 60 traditional knowledge keepers and elders, both men and women, from throughout the treaty nations of Saskatchewan and other parts of what we now call Canada. Those elders and knowledge keepers taught me about the spirit and intent of treaty.
Full respect and implementation of aboriginal treaty rights by governments and Canada is essential in order to alter the daily-lived experience of our people who reside on reserves and in the urban centres of Canada.The urgent need for Canada to demonstrate genuine respect and long-term commitment in keeping with the 2012 crown-first nations gathering and the 2013 meeting between the Prime Minister and first nations leaders remains.
Full honour and implementation of our treaties is crucial to the evolution of Canada and the principle of federalism. Cooperation and harmony within the Canadian federation is not generated by closing off discussion on significant undertakings, such as by unilaterally amending the Indian Act. Cooperative and harmonious relationships cannot be achieved by devaluing treaties or by unilateral government actions. What's needed is a comprehensive process supported and committed to by government with full and inclusive partnerships between first nations and government.
We all agree that we want to move beyond the Indian Act and the colonialistic controls of the Indian Act; there's no question about that. The important thing to keep in mind is the process that we use to get outside of the Indian Act. That process must be driven by first nations people, not a private member's bill. The process must have the full political and financial support of the government over the long term, a process that builds upon the Prime Minister's commitment from the 2012 crown-first nations gathering and from the January 11, 2013 meeting. The process of creating a private member's bill does not include adequate resources for consultation and accommodation by first nations people.
If the government were serious about amending the Indian Act, it would not be done through a private member's bill. It would ensure that were enough resources for extensive consultation with first nations people, both on and off reserve. This process is not respectful. This is not in keeping with the duty to consult and accommodate and does not reflect the honour of the crown, nor does it respect the principle and practice of free, prior, and informed consent as reinforced in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Government of Canada endorsed in 2010.
Our treaties are international in nature, and I always say that treaties trump policy. Policy does not trump treaties. In 1876 we were given an Indian Act. It was not a treaty implementation act, it was an Indian Act. At issue here is that there is nothing in place to give legal effect to those sacred treaties that we have, which we entered into with the crown, nation to nation.
As indigenous peoples, a lot of us have even become so colonialized as to think that our rights come from the Indian Act, to the extent that some of us still call our Indian status cards treaty cards.
Given the Prime Minister's commitment on January 11 to a high-level mechanism and a process to look at treaty implementation, we felt there was an opportunity to move beyond the Indian Act towards a treaty implementation act, to give legal effect to our international treaties, and to implement section 35, which recognizes and affirms treaty rights in Canada's own constitution.
As indigenous peoples, we have the inherent right to self-determination with the ability to enter into treaty relationships with the crown and with other indigenous nations. We exercise that right, and because we shared the land and resources with the newcomers to Turtle Island, we now also have treaty rights. Under that inherent right to self-determination, we have the ability to create our own laws under our own jurisdiction. We don't need bylaws under the Indian Act. All we need are our own laws to be respected and recognized.
The question I have for this committee is this. If this Indian Act is done away with tomorrow morning, would that mean that we've done away with our inherent rights? Does that mean we've done away with our treaty rights? Does that mean the federal fiduciary or crown trust obligation is gone? The answer is no, of course not. We will always have our inherent and treaty rights. They come from a sacred covenant with the Creator and they will be there as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow, and the grass grows. My point is that we are indigenous peoples. We have our own land, own laws, our own customs, traditions, languages, and are our own identifiable people with our own identifiable form of government. Because we are indigenous peoples, we have the ability to exercise an inherent right to self-determination based upon our jurisdiction. Because of that, our chiefs entered into that treaty relationship with the crown. They exercised that inherent right and made that international treaty. Unfortunately, a treaty implementation act did not follow.
The Indian Act was put in place in 1876. The private member's bill is not the way out of the Indian Act. The private member's bill will not facilitate a treaty implementation act. This does nothing for Canada to implement its own constitution. Again, we all agree with getting out of the Indian Act, but it's the process. What I'm here to talk about is the adequate process, one that honours the duty to consult and accommodate by the crown. If that's not in place, we can't support any of this.
I think you should scrap the bill and start over. If your objective was to start a dialogue, Rob, you've done a great job of that. I commend you for that. Your objective has been met. This is a dialogue that is not fully supported by government. I believe that if it were, there would be a meaningful consultation process involved that would have ensured a fully financed, long-term, sustainable process for treaty implementation, fully supported by cabinet and the Prime Minister's Office.
That's my formal statement right now, honourable committee. I look forward to some questions later on.