Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you and good morning, members of Parliament, staff, chiefs, and technicians who are here today.
I am Chief Craig Makinaw from Ermineskin Cree Nation and also the Grand Chief of the Confederacy of Treaty 6, representing 17 first nations.
I'd like to introduce one of our council members from Ermineskin. Laurelle White is sitting with me.
We are tabling a written submission with the committee. I'm not going to read the submission but rather highlight some of the key points related to our objection to the whole legislation.
We have travelled from Ermineskin and Treaty 6 to appear before this committee on Bill S-8. Our ancestors entered into treaty with the British crown to allow for the Queen's subjects to live in our territories. When our ancestors entered into treaty with the British crown, water was included in the treaty for as long as the rivers flow. These were the words used at the time of treaty-making. In any discussion on water and the use of water, our treaties must be considered. Our ancestors did not give up water. Our ancestors tied the treaty-making to the waters flowing. The crown did not ask for the waters.
When we talk about water and the actions of the Parliament of Canada, the honour of the crown arises. Treaties are important constitutional documents for the state of Canada. Under international, Commonwealth, and Canadian law, Canada could not exist without the treaties made with our ancestors. The treaties underpin the whole state of Canada.
In light of this foundation, what is the constitutional authority of Canada to impose a legislative framework on the treaty first nations? Where is the honour of the crown?
In the Haida case, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote:
The honour of the Crown also infuses the processes of treaty making and treaty interpretation. In making and applying treaties, the Crown must act with honour and integrity, avoiding even the appearance of 'sharp dealing'.
Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing aboriginal sovereignty with assumed crown sovereignty and to define aboriginal rights guaranteed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
It is clear from the court cases that the Supreme Court of Canada, on the issue of the honour of the crown, is relevant when dealing with treaty rights. This is the case even when those rights have not been proven. The assertion of the right engages the government in a process to consult with first nations. It cannot be overridden by Parliament.
There is a positive obligation on the government to act in an honourable way in dealing with treaty peoples. In the case of the drafting and submitting to the Senate Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, no process was engaged with first nations.
The proposed legislation won't change the constitutional rights of the treaty first nations and put our nations in harm's way under various provincial schemes. There are ongoing boil water advisories across Indian country. This legislation does not propose any solutions. Rather, the legislation puts first nations in the direct path of an oncoming freight train.
At the same time, government is busy undermining programs that might have assisted first nations to avoid the whole process. We recently learned of the cancellation of the drinking water quality program. The government officials wrote:
The dedication and on-going support to this program enabled this program to grow and mature into a very successful and respected research program by First Nations communities across Canada.
Was it due to its success that the government cancelled the whole thing?
To quote the next paragraph:
I regret to inform you that Health Canada will not continue with the Drinking Water Quality Program after March 31, 2014. The Drinking Water Program will focus on enabling the communities to monitor drinking water quality as per the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.
How is this going to be done? The legislation is pushing our nations into the hands of the provinces and private corporations. This is a violation of the treaty. Programs and services that are started and cut by civil servants do not honour the intentions of the crown. These decisions are in contravention of any semblance of democratic processes. Legislation is drafted. We are invited to speak, but none of our words are taken into consideration. There are no amendments. There is no process.
We have complained to the United Nations as we struggle to uphold the honour of the crown, but the successor state of Canada throws dirt on the crown on a daily basis with these kinds of bills and acts. This is not bringing honour to the crown. We do not give our free, prior, and informed consent to this legislation.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today. I have some other motions from AoTC, from our chiefs' meetings.