Good morning.
[Witness speaks in Cree]
Today I am speaking for the Confederacy of Treaty 6 on Bill C-9.
I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations as well as my home nation, the Ermineskin Cree Nation.
As grand chief of the confederacy, I'm tasked with advocating for the protection of our treaty rights which have been enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as in the sacred agreements themselves. As grand chief I advocate for the 18 member nations and speak from a unified position.
Today I've been tasked with outlining our concerns with Bill C-9, the first nations elections act, and the continued imposition of supposed Canadian authority over first nations and our governance. The problematic sections of Bill C-9 are as follows.
Overall Bill C-9 can be seen as a slight modification on the current default election system outlined in section 74 of the Indian Act. These slight changes, although minimal, have great implications for first nations that rely on their own custom laws or those encountering some leadership issues. According to INAC numbers, out of 617 first nations in Canada, 238 hold their elections according to the Indian Act, 343 hold custom election systems, and 36 are self-governing.
The changes proposed by the bill may be of interest to the 238 that hold their elections in line with the Indian Act, but they will also have implications for those 343 that hold custom elections.
Our specific concern is with clause 3 of the bill in which the opt-in legislation can be applied by order in council to a first nation for which a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compromised governance of that first nation.
Interpretation of this provision could lead to the imposition of the new act on a first nation that is following a custom election system and that is involved in a dispute. By empowering the minister to impose the act, the Government of Canada once gain is overstepping its bounds in regard to first nations governance.
Disputes in leadership are commonplace in politics, yet first nations are the only bodies of which the leadership can be unilaterally changed, be it through the Indian Act or through Bill C-9.
Further to this intrusion on first nations governance, the minister and INAC are given the ability to define who an elector is. Although some first nations have come in line with Corbiere, the onus falls on the government to determine who these bands are and to deal with them individually. There is no unilateral blanket definition of elector.
These intrusions of the federal government continue to serve as a detriment to leadership and to relationship building, and they seem to impose changes that fit the government agenda.
Compounding the definition of elector is the provision that empowers the electors to petition for a change in leadership. This petition exists and is unique to first nations in a very discriminatory fashion, and as well may lead to the attempted application of the provincial judicial system, which is a violation of section 91, class 24, of the BNA Act, 1867.
These issues must be taken into full consideration by the minister and government.
On the right to self-determination, attempting to impose new provisions regarding first nations elections is a violation of their rights as laid out in section 35.
There are also internationally recognized inherent rights of first nations. A UN declaration outlines the rights of first nations in regard to governance. I've referenced four articles in my presentation. I'll just give the numbers, because there are four different sections, as you all know, in the declaration: article 3, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination; article 4, “Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination...”; article 5, “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions...”; and article 6, “Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.”
The chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the INAC minister to respect and enact these provisions of the UN declaration, and not simply recognize, but affirm them through practice.
Bill C-9 is not to be construed as a respecting of first nations governance. The reality is that Canada is attempting to define the rules by which first nations govern themselves, and this is not self-determination.
With respect to the contradictory actions of the government, once again we have an example of the government acting contrary to the statement made by the Prime Minister at the crown-first nations gathering in 2012.
Unilateral imposition or altering of the Indian Act was targeted by Harper as a step in the wrong direction, yet we have been provided with numerous alterations and changes through Bill C-45, Bill C-27, Bill C-9, and finally with Bill C-428.
Chiefs call upon the continued attacks on our sovereignty to cease and for the Prime Minister to stand by his words. Archaic provisions of the Indian Act and perhaps the entire act itself must be scrapped. However, the replacement legislation must be created by first nations and embody the relationships that serve as a foundation for this country. A treaty must be fully implemented and enshrined.
In closing, I would like to state that the provisions that allow for a unilateral imposition of the act on those first nations that follow custom election systems must be re-examined as this is a direct violation of our treaty and their inherent rights enshrined in section 35 as well as in section 91, class 24, of the BNA Act, 1867.
The government appears to be making a habit of violating these foundational documents, including the breaking of the treaty with little recourse or penalty. This continued approach will only hamper progress not only for first nations, but for the country as a whole.
The chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the government to retract all bills that are unilateral in nature and demand that meaningful consultation begin at the nation-to-nation level.
Thank you for your time and consideration today.
I have another paper besides my confederacy paper from the Treaty 6 chiefs. It's from Ermineskin. They are pretty much the same, so as you read them both, the arguments are the same.
Again, thank you for your time and consideration in my being here today.