I am going to take the privilege of standing up. I have been sitting for a couple of hours and I feel like I need to stretch. I want to slow the process down a bit. I want to say there are members of the Treaty 8 Tribal Council who are sitting in the back. Some are chiefs, speakers, councillors and managers. They are here on a workshop to develop a framework for the kind of government they want in their area. The process is happening along with their negotiations. I also wanted to say that it is with great pleasure that I am here speaking. My prime focus today is going to be on treaties. I am taking this time because I know many Members do not have an understanding of when we talk about treaties. It is very crucial, important, and paramount that Members of this House understand this.
I belong to the Chipewyan nation. I am with the Treaty 8 made in 1899. I also want to say that 1993 has been declared the international year of indigenous people. The theme is called "a new partnership." For me to understand that and for other people to understand it took 500 years to arrive and to accept the concept of partnership. Twenty years ago the Government of Canada recognized, for the first time, aboriginal rights. It was also 20 years ago that caveat, the Paulette case, ruled in favour of Treaties 8 and 11 in the Northwest Territories. Judge Morrow's ruling declared that aboriginal people had over 450,000 square miles of land, rights and interest.
I want to remind you that in 1967 the Government of the Northwest Territories came into existence. This government came into existence without the consent of treaty First Nations. In 1969 the Government of Canada introduced the white paper. The white paper was to assimilate all Indian people in Canada, to put them into the mosaic of what they call "Canadians" where they would do away with their rights, their reservations and so on and so forth. Treaty First Nations in southern Canada south of the 60 parallel lobbied to squash this move and they succeeded. However, north of the 60 parallel this white paper is the blueprint of what is taking place here today. Whether we accept that or not, is another issue. We have been using this word "assimilation" and the white paper is just that.
The oral proclamation in 1763, recognizes Indian sovereignty and their nationhood. It recognizes treaties as making process and protocol from the international perspective. There was an agreement by consent that no one nation would alter, diminish or unilaterally change the direction of those agreements, unless there was consent.
Treaty 8 was made in 1899, Treaty 11 in 1921. This land we all live on, north of the 60 parallel, up to the Arctic coast into the Delta, is a remnant of treaties. When we talk about treaties, the government has their concept of treaty and their obligation to First Nations. I have handed out copies of Treaties 8 and 11. These are the government's fulfilments to treaties. The versions of First Nations is not what you will find in this book. We talk about a great law, and this great law is "as long as the sun shines, the river flows and the grass grows, that we live in peace and harmony." There is no man-made law, or any other law, that supersedes that great law. Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 members still stand by that great law.
Treaties are based on international protocol and consent. It is bilateral, it is nation to nation. If you look on page six, on the report of commissioners, in the third paragraph, it says "We assured them that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life." This mode of life is what they are talking about in the law, this balance, this harmony with nature, spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically, they will not interfere with that way of life.
It also continues to say that it opened the way to the imposition of any tax. It is black and white. Our people are taxed to this very day, including the GST that we have to pay. Those are not fulfilments of treaties.
If you turn to page 12, the third paragraph says, "The said Indians do hereby seek release, surrender up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors forever, all of their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits."
My dear friends, in my language, there is no word for "surrender" so how can we have consented to something of that magnitude? You expect the treaties to say "yes" and if they told them "From here on, you are not going to own your land or your rights to the air or the water," that treaty would never have been made.
Foremost, the Indian Act was made in 1867 by the virtue of the BNA Act, that was never told to the Indians when the treaties were being made. When we say "bilateral process" it has to be recognized and confirmed by the treaties. The Imperial Crown, the Government of Canada, is under a continuing obligation to deal directly with the First Nations' signatories to treaties.
According to international and Canadian law, treaties cannot be unilaterally interpreted, denied or limited. A fully informed and written consent is required by both parties to treaties prior to any changes in this bilateral relationship. No form of consent or altering, diminishing, affecting our extinguishment of bilateral relationship has ever been given up by the First Nations' signatories to treaties. We have never given up that consent. We have never surrendered that. "The First Nations' signatories to treaties hereby served notice upon Canada that any other process now, and in the future, not agreed to by the treaty First Nations is a violation of the sacred treaty relationship." This great law is unacceptable.
Treaties entered into between treaty First Nations' signatories and the Imperial Crown sets out the special relationship and obligations flowing from those treaties. The First Nations have a unique and special position in this bilateral process which I am referring to. We are a sovereign and independent nation with our own pre-existing laws, principles and forms of government. We enter into treaties of peace and friendship done by consent. Any changes or amendments to any sections of the Constitution of 1982, including section 91.24, must reflect the spirit and the intent of the treaties as understood by the treaty First Nations. All other amendments must have the consent of treaty First Nations.
My friends, this includes this House. Any changes that you must make in respect to programs and services that flows from treaties, you have to have the consent of treaty First Nations. You cannot bypass that because the consent is what makes treaties. It is very important that we understand this. I am saying this because I do not think the treaty position is ever going to surface in this House, not for a long time, because with this forum we have a very broad, lateral process.
Section 91.24 of the Canadian Constitution is where the Northwest Territories Act is found. The northern accord which you speak of is what the treaty First Nations calls "LRT", lands, revenue and trust. To make any changes to LRT or the northern accord you need the direct consent of treaty First Nations. You cannot unilaterally do that and expect the northern accord to be transferred to this government. The treaty First Nations sitting in this House should understand that.
Community transfers initiative implementation plan, programs and services, section 91.24. You have to have direct consent by treaty First Nations. Consultation does not enter into the discussions, it is consent.
The Status Quo
Everyone talks about the status quo. The way the Treaty 8 First Nations see this, this year is the status quo. This is not acceptable to treaty First Nations and we probably will not embrace this institution for a long time.
When we talk about constitutions and legislation, you do not have to have amendments to the Constitution or legislation to fulfil treaties, it is already there. You do not have to have constitutional amendments or legislation to fulfil this great law, as long as the sun shines the river flows and the grass grows.
Aboriginal First Nations
In this text when we talked about aboriginal self-government, many people spoke about different forms of government. There was exclusive aboriginal governments that were expressed. Treaty First Nations and Metis Nations talk about these types of governments, based on their culture that reflects their nationhood. People talk about treaty First Nations, especially Treaty 8, and the Deh Cho region talked about exclusive aboriginal government based on treaties. There were other people who wanted a combination of aboriginal and public government. That also has to be taken into consideration and finally, public government. If you go through the document, public government was hardly even mentioned. Every treaty First Nations has to be treated according to their treaties, the relationship they have with the Government of Canada.
Interim government has to ensure and support that special relationship with the Government of Canada because treaty First Nations are the only people who have that relationship. This interim government has to relinquish the areas of programs and services to treaty First Nations because that is where it belongs. If you want to talk about transfer, you have to relinquish that to the treaty First Nations because they are the ones who should be administering and should be responsible for the programs and services which flow through treaties.
This treaty making process has been with us for 94 years. When treaty First Nations talk about treaties, it means consent, it means bilateral consent with the Government of Canada. We have to begin to support that when things are changing rapidly here. When Treaty 8 people stand up and say, "We want our own exclusive government," that is exactly what they are talking about because it comes from treaties. Ninety four years, compared to 500 years is very short. Just in the last few years we have begun to talk about self-government. I hope this House can begin to entertain the concepts of nationhood from where the treaties are coming from, to begin to support them.
Finally, your Minister, Mr. Tom Siddon, in Vancouver, British Columbia, set out parameters of a treaty commission. To quote him, he said, "Many people still do not understand the purpose of the treaty commission. Many people believe it is being established to actually negotiate treaty agreements." He continues, "The B C treaty commission is there to facilitate, rather than negotiate, or as the First Nations leadership have suggested, act as people of the process. This very subtle difference speaks volumes about what we have learned over the past few years in this province."
I suggest this very strongly if you want to talk about setting up another procedure for the constitutional process. I also recommend you set up a pilot process for a treaty commission where a process is happening, where you are beginning to fulfil and beginning to understand the making of treaty because it is happening right now in Treaty 8. There are Treaty 11 people who are also pursuing that, so it is happening, it is in the works, we have to deal with it. We cannot put our heads in the snow and expect things are going to be all right. We have to deal with it, it is there.
As I have said, I am probably never going to have another opportunity to talk about treaties. There is probably never going to be another chief who is going to come in here and talk about treaties. That is why I am taking this time to slow down and talk about treaties, from where we see it. It is very important. I honour you for listening to me.
---Applause