AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 3, 1997

• 1540

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): Today, Wednesday, December 3, we are examining Bill C-6, an Act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We will be linking up by videoconference to Yellowknife where we are meeting Mr. Bill Erasmus, Dene National Chief.

Mr. Erasmus,

[English]

is it possible for you to introduce the witnesses, please?

Chief Bill Erasmus (National Chief, Dene Nation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to speak to your committee. We have community members with us here, including community chiefs and councillors, and grand chiefs from some of our regions.

As you know, we represent approximately 16 communities, so since the cost for us to go to Ottawa is quite substantial, we have chosen to speak to you via videoconferencing.

We have a list of names, which I'll read off to you, and then we will have them present in that order. At the end of the presentations, we'll be open for questions.

We have Tim Lennie from the Pehdzeh Ki Dene as the first speaker. The second speaker is Gabe Hardisty from the same community. Next is Chief Yvonne Norwegian from the Jean Marie River Band. Our fourth speaker is Chief Florence Cayen from West Point First Nation. She is followed by Leon Thomas, also from West Point. Next is Chief Rita Cli from the Liidlii Kue First Nation. Grand Chief Mike Nadli is here from the Deh Cho First Nations, as are Patrick Simon and Lloyd Norn from Deninu Ku'e. Next is Grand Chief Felix Lockhart from Akaitcho Territory.

I'll be working the camera, so hopefully I get everything right. We will begin with former Chief Tim Lennie.

Mr. Tim Lennie (Former Chief, Pehdzeh Ki Dene Band): Good afternoon. I am former chief of the Pehdzeh Ki First Nations. It's now known as Wrigley. On behalf of the membership, I would like to say mahsi, which means thank you, for giving me this opportunity to express our concerns, for letting us have the opportunity to come to Yellowknife and speak in front of the board to deliver the concerns of my membership to you.

I understand there is a bill to be passed, Bill C-6, regarding the lands and resource management up here in the Mackenzie Valley. We are part of the Deh Cho. Wrigley is situated at the end of the highway, and the Sahtu settlement boundary is between Tulita and Wrigley. After reviewing parts of the document without basically any resource person or technicians to assist us, I have some concerns in regard to the way the bill is going to be passed. As I said, after reviewing parts of the document, it seems like Bill C-6 will be imposed on the people I represent.

• 1545

At this time, we are in the process of discussions with the state of Canada regarding our aboriginal and treaty rights. We have no settled claim and hopefully in the near future we will be able to get into formal negotiations. I also understand, from what I've heard so far, that the government has an obligation to the Gwich'in and to the Sahtu to set up this board. I have no problem with that, but while we, as first nations people in the Deh Cho, are still trying to get at the table to deal with some of the issues that pertain to Bill C-6, we are in no formal negotiations yet. I have the understanding that if this bill is passed my people's rights, aboriginal treaty rights, will be extinguished. That I cannot accept.

I also have the understanding, not to delay the process of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu claim, where the government has an obligation to set up this board to manage their land and resources within the settlement area.... Not showing any respect to any first nations who have not completed their negotiations or discussions...I feel, as a leader, this cannot be imposed on us. Legally the government has to do something with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. My support for them in those two regions is to complete their agreement where they, in the end, are managing their own resources.

So to make it short, yes, I give my support to the Gwich'in and Sahtu because of the federal government's obligations, because of their comprehensive claim...this board and this bill itself should only apply to the settlement areas of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. As representatives of the Pehdzeh Ki first nation, we have not had an opportunity to review this. The reason for that is that government does not provide...our organization does not have technical resource people to go through this with us. But what I understood when I read this bill is that it basically pertains to the comprehensive claims policy.

• 1550

In the Deh Cho we have previously stated we cannot accept anything that is going to require us to extinguish our rights. It is not the right of any first nations or any government to extinguish the rights we have in this part of the country, to extinguish them for us.

I still feel this bill is only identified for the settlement areas of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu land claims agreement, and the government has to live up to that. The thing bothering us is that you, with disrespect, are imposing things on our people that are going to affect our children's rights.

Once again, I say mahsi for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tim Lennie. Are we ready to go to the question period? Is there another speaker? Mr. Gabe Hardisty.

[English]

Mr. Gabe Hardisty (Former Chief, Pehdzeh Ki Dene Band): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here with my former chief and I'm also representing my community, the elders. I don't have very much to add to what my former chief said. He has spoken on most of the issues of concern we have. I would just like to say thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Yvonne Norwegian.

Chief Yvonne Norwegian (Jean Marie River Band): Thank you for having us here. I have a concern I would like to bring up. It's about Bill C-6 and our future generations. There's nothing said about our future generations in Bill C-6. I'm really concerned about the children and the youth of today.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Norwegian. Chief Florence Cayen.

Chief Florence Cayen (West Point First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me here today to have this opportunity to speak to you. I have some concerns with your document on Bill C-6.

• 1555

An opportunity should be given to us, the Deh Cho region, and other unclaimed regions to get funding so we can review Bill C-6 clause by clause in a workshop. This would include all aboriginal claims with a concern. This is the first time I've seen Bill C-6, and I don't understand it. Neither do my people or the rest of the community leaders in our regions.

That's the concern I have, and again, merci for having me here today. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Cayen.

Leon Thomas, West Point councillor, go ahead.

Mr. Leon Thomas (Councillor, West Point First Nation): I also have some concerns that Bill C-6 concerns a lot of people in our region. The way I take it, before we get involved in this document....

The Deh Cho First Nation is not mentioned in the land use or water board. We need to go through this document with the help of resource people so we can identify what we're getting into.

That's all I have to say. Thank you. Merci.

The Chairman: Thank you, Leon Thomas.

Chief Rita Cli of the Liidlii Kue First Nation.

Chief Rita Cli (Liidlii Kue First Nation): Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to present my submission to you. I'd like to say something to you in my language—and I'll translate what I'm going to be saying—just so the standing committee knows we do communicate in our language.

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language].

What I just said to you in my language is thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you. I am talking to you from my heart, for my kids and the generation to come. Merci. Here goes my submission.

I am the chief from Liidlii Kue First Nation, and I was asked to make a submission to you on the development of Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The Liidlii Kue First Nation Council, representing over 1,000 Dene from the Fort Simpson, NWT area, consists of a chief and eight councillors who are elected every two years. Liidlii Kue First Nation's traditional lands are comprised of over 100,000 square kilometres in the southwestern corner of the Northwest Territories. Currently the council supervises an annual budget of more than $5 million and a workforce that varies seasonally from 30 to 70 employees.

The Liidlii Kue First Nation is a member of the Deh Cho First Nations, an alliance of 14 aboriginal community governments. The Liidlii Kue First Nation supports the detailed submission to this committee presented by the grand chief of the Deh Cho First Nations.

The basic principle of Bill C-6 would violate our treaty rights. At this point Bill C-6 must be amended to excluded the traditional territories of Deh Cho First Nations. That being said, the Liidlii Kue First Nation recognizes the positive intent of Bill C-6 to establish an integrated resource management system that treats our valley as an ecosystem.

I have come here to suggest some positive solutions about how our nations can begin to work together to maintain ecological health of this valley. The Liidlii Kue First Nation looks forward to fresh discussions and then negotiations concerning future legislation.

• 1600

In our Slavey language, we call the Mackenzie River that runs through our land “Deh Cho”. Translated literally, “Deh Cho” means “big river”. However, there is another deeper meaning to the word “deh”. The word “deh” comes from the old root word “di”, which means “that which has no beginning and no end; it unites everything”. I think this expresses the Dene cultural understanding of the specific scientific concept of an ecosystem.

This traditional holistic view of the land helps to explain why the Liidlii Kue First Nation and other members of the Deh Cho first nations have refused to enter into land claim settlements under the federal comprehensive land claims policy. Our opposition to this policy goes deeper than an unwillingness to extinguish our aboriginal title. The Creator gave this land to us to take care of and to share with newcomers. The land does not belong to us; we belong to the land. We cannot sell our land and divide it into parcels owned by first nations, with the rest owned by the Crown, nor can we abdicate our land management responsibilities to co-management boards that can be overruled by federal ministers. To maintain our Dene unit identity, our whole traditional land base must remain wholly intact, and we must claim our responsibility to decide how the land is to be used.

In 1992, the Liidlii Kue First Nation established the Denendeh Resources Committee to begin reclaiming our responsibility by supporting harvesters on the land, by reviewing proposed development projects on our land, and by training local people as land and resource managers. The Denendeh Resources Committee represents all extended families in our first nation. It includes elders, youth and women. The Denendeh Resources Committee makes decisions by consensus.

The Denendeh Resources Committee has nearly completed a mapping project documenting how we use our land for traditional pursuits. The next step is to develop our own land use plan to decide which land needs to be protected and where individual industrial development might be acceptable. We are also collaborating with environmental organizations such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the World Wildlife Fund to identify and establish protected areas that will preserve the ecological integrity of our lands.

The practical work of the Denendeh Resources Committee reflects our understanding of sovereignty. The basic sovereign unit of our society is the extended family, which is responsible for managing its own traditional lands and resources. Any use of any extended family's traditional lands and resources requires their consent. Similarly, each first nation is responsible for managing its own traditional lands. Several first nations may work together to manage their traditional lands jointly, but only if there is mutual consent. Overall, sovereignty is delegated upward to the least extent possible to maintain personal freedom. Gradually, our families and first nations are recognizing that we must work together closely, as well as with other people and other jurisdictions, to take care of our land. However, the basic principle of consent at each level must never be violated.

The work of the Denendeh Resources Committee is consistent with the self-government proposal prepared by the Deh Cho first nations. In collaboration with other communities, governments of the Deh Cho first nations, our goal remains to gradually establish a public government based on Dene values and principles. It would be charged with powers similar to those of a province in lands, resources and environmental matters. Local non-aboriginal people would have a democratic right to participate in this government. The jurisdiction of the federal government related to matters such as national parks, migratory wildlife, navigational waters, and fisheries would be recognized.

1605

The Liidlii Kue First Nation has no intention of establishing an isolated lands, resources, and environmental management system. Both traditional knowledge and science tell us that no part of the land can be treated separately from the whole ecosystem. In fact, the whole Deh Cho valley is now experiencing environmental impacts that are caused far beyond its boundaries.

Recently three major government-sponsored studies, each costing millions of dollars, have documented these changes. The Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report shows that airborne contaminants from around the world are accumulating in our fish and wildlife. The Mackenzie Basin Impact Study predicted that climate change caused by global carbon emissions will be most severely felt in this basin. Increased landslides along the river banks of the Deh Cho suggest the basin may already be going through the beginning of significant changes to its climate. Finally, the Northern River Basins Study showed that pollution from Alberta pulp mills is being detected from as far away as Slave River. As well, it showed that the Bennett Dam in British Columbia is slowing down sedimentation in the Slave River delta.

In this respect the Liidlii Kue First Nation is very aware of the need to collaborate with other jurisdictions on lands, resources, and environmental matters. With the consent of other community governments of the Deh Cho first nations, the Liidlii Kue First Nation is willing to delegate Deh Cho representatives to participate as equal partners on lands and water boards or environmental impact review boards dealing with matters that affect more than one region or that extend beyond the boundaries of the valley.

The Liidlii Kue First Nation criteria for equal partnership are as follows. First, the board may be a proportional decision-making board that cannot be overruled by a federal or provincial minister or both. Second, the board may be a proportional advisory board that makes recommendations to and requires the approval of its recommendations by relevant first nations as well as federal or provincial ministers or both. In the event of deadlocks, the Liidlii Kue First Nation would appreciate the use of independent arbitrators.

On other specific assumptions of Bill C-6, the Liidlii Kue First Nation would like to stress the following principles before entering fresh discussions and negotiations concerning future legislation.

First, under subclause 45(1), regional land use planning boards are not required to co-operate with adjacent regional land use planning boards. Mandatory co-operation is vital on adjacent lands, for example, to establish viable protected areas.

Second, greater attention needs to be devoted to the environmental monitoring and audit proposed in part 6. An independent environmental monitoring agency, probably co-ordinated with the recently established Federal/Provincial Mackenzie River Basin Board, needs to be established.

Third, to undertake any ecosystem management of the Deh Cho valley, the delta of the river must be included. This would require the consent of the Inuvialuit.

Mr. Chairman and board, thank you so much for listening to my submission. With that, I would like to say mahsi cho for my future generations.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief, for your statement.

Go ahead with the next.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Grand Chief Mike Nadli, of the Deh Cho First Nations.

• 1610

Grand Chief Mike Nadli (Deh Cho First Nations): Mahsi cho, thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

This is further to a presentation we made to you and other members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on November 18, 1997.

I'm here essentially as the Grand Chief of Deh Cho First Nations. Today we are in Yellowknife. I want to further some of the comments and concerns expressed by the chiefs of the Deh Cho.

One of our chiefs planned to be here. Unfortunately, he's not here, but he has expressed his concern regarding Bill C-6 and has recommended an amendment further to what we recommended in Ottawa during our November 18 presentation.

Currently we've begun a new dialogue with the federal government—namely, the Minister of Indian Affairs, Jane Stewart. It's been two years in the making. It's 1997, and we have a lot of concerns about what Bill C-6 implies for self-government arrangements for the future. We are very concerned, especially at this point in time, with our discussions with the federal government in their preliminary stages.

The point of my presentation is to give you a brief history, from 1990 to date.

In 1990 the Dene-Métis agreement in principle was rejected by the Deh Cho Dene-Métis, basically for the reason of extinguishment. At the time, the Dene-Métis did not believe they should extinguish or surrender or cede their aboriginal and treaty title on lands they occupied in their traditional territory. We cannot contravene our laws, given to us by the creator, and we cannot let go of the land, meaning to seize, render or extinguish.

Since that time there have been initiatives by our organization to research further the treaties as our elders understood them. Essentially, our conclusions in that research, refuted earlier by the Paulette case, clearly indicated that we did not enter into treaties with the federal government to let go of our lands or pass titles to the federal government, or the Crown at the time.

In 1993 the Deh Cho assembly was held in Kakisa. The people at the general assembly passed a Deh Cho declaration essentially outlining our aspirations for a government in the Deh Cho, unveiling our understanding of our relationship with the land and with the creator.

In 1994, upon the invitation of the minister at the time, Mr. Ron Irwin, who in the early stages of the Liberal government had solicited first nations across Canada on their views on self-government, our organization developed a Deh Cho proposal to create a Dene government in the Deh Cho traditional homeland.

Since the time the previous minister, Ron Irwin, described our proposal as unique and interesting, he at numerous times rebuffed and ignored our aspirations to make things right in our own homeland. In tandem with this period of time, a lot of our treaty and aboriginal rights are continually being marginalized, in the areas of education, health and social services, from a lot of the understanding we had with the Crown with regard to the treaty.

• 1615

I just wanted to share that perspective, to enlighten you as to our situation here in the Deh Cho. We are concerned about the implications of Bill C-6 for the future. Perhaps the committee is not aware of it, but the self-government arrangement may be jeopardized or the process that the federal government has undertaken currently could be undermined with this proposed legislation.

So I'd like to close by saying thank you very much for my being in your presence once again. I thank you for listening. Mahsi cho.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Our next presenter is Patrick Simon from Deninu Kue.

Mr. Pat Simon (Co-ordinator, Deninu Ku'e Environment Committee): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to make a somewhat rushed presentation to the standing committee on this particular issue for this particular legislation that is in the process of being enacted by the Government of Canada.

As Bill mentioned to you earlier, I am from the first nation of Deninu Ku'e, probably more or less known to the rest of Canada as Fort Resolution. I am an elected band councillor. I have been involved for some time, actually since I have become of age and aware of the necessity for me to be involved so that we can create a future for my children as well as the children of the people around me.

With respect to this particular legislation, I can assure you that, strictly from a grassroots-level viewpoint of this, virtually no consultation has taken place, or none that is responsible or accountable in a manner such as I would expect a government such as Canada's to follow.

As for myself, I'm here, asked by my chief to be here today, not only to give some views on how we feel as a first nation, but in support of our Grand Chief Felix Lockhart, who will be making a presentation to you shortly.

First of all, I would like to mention that I've come to be here somewhat rushed to take this document in and to come out with something worthy to present to you. So to be really honest, I didn't even try.

There are still a lot of uncertainties and unclarities about this document, but I'm very clear on one thing, which is that this is a document that is necessary or needed by the peoples of Canada and by the claimant groups that already have settled their claims. I can understand that. My people can understand that, and they can respect that.

• 1620

But what we can't understand and what we can't respect is the fact that this document or this act of law or legislation will bind us to it, or will set the stage for what will take place in the future when it comes to our territory, subsequently our first nation's aspirations to negotiate a relationship between ourselves and the Government of Canada that will benefit not only my people but the people of Canada, and subsequently the people of the world.

If there were a concern that I personally would have with it or something I would need clarified, that would be the fact that I question whether this is really within your right, strictly as it relates to me as a treaty member of a first nation that has an agreement with the Government of Canada. Is it within your powers to do this? I believe it is not. In order for you to legitimize fully your legislation or this bill, it would have to be with proper, responsible and accountable consultation and consent of the people of the Akaitcho Territory Tribal Council and the people who are the signatories or descendants of the signatories of Treaty No. 8. Subsequently, it relates to the other treaties with neighbouring lands.

Once again, the fact that I am here, as well as other delegation members from our area, does not legitimize this process as proper, accountable and responsible consultation. For me, this is the first step.

Actually, to be quite honest with you, I saw the document last night and got in as much as I could while getting here. It's quite a trip coming here. We go by car; we go by plane; we do what it takes to get here, because we feel that this is a very important moment you have undertaken, that it could affect how we want to proceed from here, as first nations, in spelling out a relationship with the rest of Canada.

I thank you very much for this opportunity. I wish you success, and I can only rely on your integrity, your honesty and your commitment to good government and responsible government.

Mahsi cho.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your statement.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you, Patrick Simon.

We now have Lloyd Norn from the same community.

The Chairman: Will you repeat your name, please.

Mr. Lloyd Norn (Environmental Adviser, Deninu Ku'e Environment Committee): Committee members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you on this important issue.

My name is Lloyd Norn. I am an environmental adviser to the first nation of Deninu Ku'e, commonly known as Fort Resolution.

• 1625

The legislation that is being proposed, in its present form, did not go through the full consultation process. We would be remiss in giving you our unqualified support without our people giving the leadership full, informed consent. The consultation process is a little too fast for us at the present time. We don't have the resources or the manpower for technical and professional advice on the implications of this act. We submit that before you dot the i's and cross the t's, we be given the necessary resources to make a fully informed decision before the standing committee concerning Bill C-6.

We do not have a problem with the Sahtu and Gwich'in claim groups having a seat on the present water board here in the Northwest Territories.

There is one other point I would like to make to the committee. As leaders, we in this room have a moral responsibility to the future generations, and we intend to do it to the best of our ability. We feel this bill would seriously undermine and jeopardize what the federal government is presently negotiating with my people. I reiterate that before any consequential amendments to our present acts are considered, we be given more time.

Thank you for listening to me. I hope your deliberations are fruitful and in the end we all come to a wise decision, so we can co-exist in a good, just manner.

• 1630

Thank you once again. That is all I wanted to add to Mr. Simon's presentation. Mahsi.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your statement. I respect that.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Our next speaker is Grand Chief Felix Lockhart from Akaitcho Territory. Mr. Lockhart has a written presentation. You will have it in the documents before you.

Grand Chief Felix Lockhart (Akaitcho Territory Tribal Council): Thank you, National Chief Bill Erasmus.

I want to wish you all a good afternoon. We're experiencing some rather warm weather up here for this time of year and I hope it's going to continue like this throughout the Christmas season. I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

I'd like to thank the previous speakers. There are other leaders from within my territory who will not be available here. Elsewhere there are meetings that pertain to the impact method agreements, so they are not able to address the standing committee at this time, but in the future hopefully we may be able to give them the opportunity.

In the meantime, I want to present a written submission on behalf of the Akaitcho Territory. This is in addition to the meetings we have had in the past. The other chiefs have addressed the issues of the bill we are discussing today since 1996. There has been some correspondence back and forth as to our position. We also had the opportunity to address the bill in springtime and now, this fall.

Throughout our discussions and correspondence we've noticed that the bill has basically changed in its form. It originated, as you all know, as Bill C-80 and is now Bill C-6, as you call it. I want to add my comments now in a written submission to the concerns the other first nations have presented on behalf of their people from the other regions in our area. In my area there are six communities and it is quite a large area, so I'd like to go on with this presentation now on behalf of the Akaitcho people.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to our territory. As the grand chief of Akaitcho Territory, I'm responsible for a territory that covers approximately 100,000 square miles. The Akaitcho Dene realize that the session is via videoconference, and we'd like to remind the committee members that the airwaves belong to us. We've never surrendered or released them, so welcome to our territory.

It is with regret that you could not appear in our territory to see its vastness and its beauty. It is our life that we are going to discuss. When we speak about our territory, we're speaking for generations yet unborn. There's a heavy responsibility on us to make the right decisions. In making these presentations, we're thinking of these things.

• 1635

In the past, we went through a lot of discussions with the state of Canada in relation to our rights. In the mid-1970s, Mr. Justice Morrow, in the Paulette case, determined that the lands and resources belonged to the Dene. The treaties entered into with the British Crown did not extinguish our rights to our lands and resources. In that famous judgment, Morrow urged the Canadian state to enter into a discussion with us about the nature of our lands and territories.

Prior to reviewing that history, I would like to add a relevant point about consultation and consent.

During the court case, Judge Morrow realized that to hear the history of the treaty-making he needed to listen to the people who were present at that. As a result, he went to the communities in the Deh Cho, Mackenzie Valley, to listen for himself. It was following a precedent set by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which commanded that no one should enter into indigenous territories without our fully informed consent. These provisions also apply to the changing of the treaty in a public forum without interference.

These procedures were not followed in relationship to this legislation. We expect them to be followed.

Over the last 25 years, Dene people have been engaged in a number of processes. All these discussions fell apart when it came to our lands and territories. You must understand, as members of the standing committee, that we Akaitcho Dene are not prepared to surrender our lands and territories. We are prepared to share and co-exist in our territory, but surrender is not an option for us. As a result, we have been waiting patiently for the state of Canada to change its policies on this issue.

We recently received a very encouraging letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It indicates that surrender does not have to be on the table. This is a great step forward, and we commend the minister for writing us that letter.

At the same time as the letter was being considered, however, this legislation was making its way through the political process. This was very difficult for us. It appears that the political goodwill established by the Minister of Indian Affairs in opening discussions with us has been undermined by this process. We do not expect to continue open and fair negotiations when the state of Canada has set some difficult preconditions.

When the Sahtu and Gwich'in entered into land claims discussions with Canada, we did not interfere. It was their decision. At the same time, during the confirmation and ratification process, Akaitcho Dene people did not sign or vote for the final settlements. In the same light, we cannot accept that the final settlements will be imposed on us through this process.

We tabled with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development some time ago a document on co-existence that is our vision of the territory and the rights of all within Akaitcho. We are attempting to implement the treaty as negotiated and entered into with the British Crown. We are not attempting to realign our relationship.

As Akaitcho Dene, our lands are important to us. We cannot move somewhere else. We come from this land. Without our lands and territories, we would be a lost people. Akaitcho Dene know the land. We live with the land. When we go on the land, we know how to care and tend for all that is on the land. We know that making the land dirty will affect us in the future. Our Dene laws have kept us alive thousands of years prior to contact. We intend to continue our relationship with the territory.

In this same light, we are prepared to discuss with Canada how the relationship will operate. It's completely contrary to good faith, openness, transparency, and honesty to have this legislation imposed on us. We are not giving our consent to this process.

Let me highlight the manner chosen by the DIAND officials. The chiefs of Akaitcho Territory received notice of this legislation through a media release from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was noted that the press release was not sent to us but to the media. In the press package, there was a reference to Priority Post. Priority Post packages cannot be considered sufficient notice of an intention by Parliament to fundamentally alter the treaty relationships with the Akaitcho Dene.

In a letter to the media, the department apologized for the late delivery of the material. What about the delivery of the information to the Akaitcho Dene leadership? We dispute that the way to do business in this country is through Priority Post. This is such a fundamental and critical issue that we deserve to be notified in a proper manner. We do not consider a press release sufficient notice. How does the committee feel about this process?

• 1640

Within the press package was a copy of letters signed by Gary Nicholl, acting director of resource policy and transfers at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. In this letter the stated objective is “an effort to consult further with you on the proposed legislation”. A Priority Post envelope received without knowing its contents does not mean an acknowledge of receiving the goods for the purpose of consulting.

Second, it must be pointed out that the Akaitcho Dene have a treaty right to consent to any changes in the treaty relationship, and it must be carried out in a specific manner. Sending a Priority Post envelope does not meet the criteria set out in a Royal Proclamation of 1763 of achieving the fully informed consent in an open and public meeting of all the citizens.

Third, the state of Canada is not the owner of the land and resources in the Akaitcho Territory, and has no legislative right to make laws or enact legislation in a territory where it possesses no jurisdiction.

Fourth, the Akaitcho leadership has never agreed that any other leadership, such as the Gwich'in or the Sahtu, have the right to consent on behalf of the Akaitcho peoples. Canada does not want to discuss the real issues of implementation of the treaties. Canada has managed to get the Sahtu and the Gwich'in to give up their rights in return for these boards. There is no real power in the boards. They are a window dressing to give the appearance of talking to the people. At present, the legislation proposes that decisions are going to be made by the Canadian government for the western Arctic regardless of the legally binding treaties.

The national chief of Denendeh will be making a number of suggestions for amendments. While we are making suggestions for amendments, we do not consider that this constitutes consent on our part for the legislation. Rather, we are trying to find an honourable solution for the committee to follow without imposing the legislation. The imposition of legislation will have serious implications for Akaitcho Dene and our territory.

When Treaty No. 8 and Treaty No. 11 were entered into, the Akaitcho Dene and the British treaty commissioner did not enter into surrender and extinguishment of land and resource rights. Rather, the treaties were considered by both parties to be of peace and friendship, as confirmed by Morrow's decision. It is a long stretch to go from peace and friendship to a complete extinguishment.

One of the most important and significant events in recent time was the federal inquiry into the construction of the pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. In that circumstance, Mr. Justice Tom Berger, delegated by the federal government to conduct the inquiry, went into the Mackenzie Valley and to the communities to get the indigenous people's views. The process that Berger followed, like that of Justice Morrow, was based on the tradition of the British in consultation with the indigenous peoples as set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. There were open and public meetings in the community, with no hidden agendas. There was no time line on the negotiations, or any limit on the amount of information that could be discussed. As a result, witnesses provided a very detailed record of the treaty negotiations and their effects on the land rights.

From the testimony that was presented at the Mackenzie Valley hearings, it is very clear that the indigenous peoples did not give up their jurisdiction to our territories, lands and resources. The proposed legislation will change the nature of the consultations that are the norm for Akaitcho Dene citizens and communities.

One of the greatest problems with this legislation is the assumption that underlies the draft. The proposed legislation is drafted on a premise that the underlying title to the lands vested in the British Crown and were then, by some magic, passed on to the state of Canada. The sovereign of England did not possess any right to assume that the underlying title vested in the Crown without the consent of the indigenous people who were in legitimate occupation of their lands. There is even less authority for the Crown to subsequently attempt to transfer these lands and resources to the new state of Canada. There could be no transfer without the consent of the indigenous people.

The federal government must provide to the chiefs and headmen that documented evidence showing that the indigenous people really, and with complete knowledge, transferred their underlying title to the state of Canada. This would be a prerequisite to the Parliament of Canada possessing any legislative authority to enact legislation over lands and resources for which they possess no authority.

• 1645

The proposed boards are designed to deal with two issues that have never been given to the federal government. One is the underlying title to the lands and water of the area. In the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements there is clear language that gives these resources over to the federal government. The federal government does not have any such agreement with the Akaitcho Dene.

I would like briefly to turn the attention of the committee to its obligations in relation to the treaty.

As citizens of Canada, each member has a treaty right. The British commissioner asked that the Queen's subjects be allowed to live in our territory in peace and friendship. To this day, every Canadian citizen enjoys their treaty rights on a daily basis. We are only requesting that the same consideration be given to our treaty rights.

It is a violation of the treaties to have the legislation apply without our consent. As Lord Denning stated in R. v. Secretary of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs and the Indian Association of Alberta:

...their rights and freedoms have been guaranteed to them by the Crown, originally by the Crown in respect of the United Kingdom, now by the Crown in respect of Canada, but, in any case, by the Crown. No Parliament should do anything to lessen the worth of these guarantees. They should be honoured by the Crown in respect of Canada “so long as the sun rises and the rivers flow.” That promise must never be broken.

The significance of this court case was that the decision came down before the Constitution was sent from Great Britain to Canada. The case is binding on the Parliament of Canada, which cannot unilaterally change the treaties without the consent of the original signatories of the treaty. The Minister of Indian Affairs cannot argue that the Gwich'in and the Sahtu entering into agreements with the federal government could affect the rights of the indigenous peoples in the whole of the Mackenzie Valley.

Finally, the number of pieces of legislation that will be affected has not been clearly discussed by the communities of the Akaitcho Territory, Dene. We would need time to analyse the changes in order to fully comment on them. Akaitcho Dene are proposing some modest amendments that would make the legislation specific to the legal obligations of Canada without including the Akaitcho Dene. It is only right. It is only just.

On behalf of the future generations that depend on us to pass to them their future, we thank you for giving us this time to present our case.

Also, I'd like to mention some of the legislation that is going to be affected by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, federal acts and regulations: Bridges Act; Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act; Canadian Environmental Protection Act; Explosives Act; Fisheries Act; Indian Act; National Defence Act; National Energy Board Act; National Parks Act; Canadian Transportation Act; Navigable Waters Protection Act; Northwest Territories Waters Act; Radiocommunication Act; Railway Safety Act; Anhydrous Ammonia Bulk Storage Regulations, Railway Safety Act; Atomic Energy Control Regulations, Atomic Energy Control Act; Chlorine Tank Gas Unloading Facilities Regulations; Federal Mobile PCB Treatment and Destruction Regulations; Flammable Liquids Bulk Storage Regulations; Indian Oil and Gas Regulations; Indian Reserve Waste Disposal Regulations, Indian Act; Indian Timber Regulations, Indian Act; Liquefied Petroleum Gas Bulk Storage Regulations; Metal Mining Effluent Regulations; Migratory Birds Regulations, Migratory Birds Convention Act; Migratory Birds Sanctuary Regulations, Migratory Birds Convention Act; National Historic Parks General Regulations, National Parks Act; Nation Parks General Regulations, National Parks Act; National Parks Guiding Regulations, National Parks Act; National Parks Leases and Licences; National Parks Timber Regulations, National Parks Wildlife Regulations under the National Parks Act; Territorial Dredging Regulations under the Territorial Lands Act; Territorial Lands Use Regulations under the Territorial Lands Act—refers to class A and B permits—Uranium and Thorium Mining Regulations under the Atomic Energy Control Act; Wildlife Areas Regulations under the Canada Wildlife Act; and provisions of NWT acts, such as the GNWT Forest Management Act, the Government of the Northwest Territories Forest Protection Act, the Government of the Northwest Territories Territorial Parks Act, the Government of the Northwest Territories Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the GNWT Wildlife Act, and the Government of the Northwest Territories Forest Management Regulations.

• 1650

That concludes my remarks. I want to mention that we never had the same players in the same room to talk this issue out, and the legislation now differs from the bill that was tabled in the spring. My question is what does this imply? What does this all mean? That is what we're trying to understand today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Grand Chief.

[Translation]

Before giving Mr. Erasmus the floor, I would remind you that we had planned to adjourn at 5:30 p.m. in order to allow members to attend other meetings they had scheduled.

I would like to mention that we are honoured with the presence in this room of Mr. Ovide Mercredi. We are also honoured to count among us Ms. Louise Hardy, NDP member for Yukon, who is always in attendance at our meetings, and all the other committee members.

Since I'm aware that time is marching on, I would like to make a proposal. I know that you want to table amendments and that you would be prepared to give us a summary of your presentation. With the unanimous consent of the members present, we could agree that the full text of your statement be read into the record.

Would a member so move?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I move that we table that document.

[Translation]

The Chairman: And that it be printed.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: And be printed, yes.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Erasmus.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you asking me to summarize my presentation?

The Chairman: Yes, and I gave the opportunity to the MPs—

Chief Bill Erasmus: Do you have a copy of my presentation?

The Chairman: Yes.

Chief Bill Erasmus: I will skip the introduction and go to the analysis of the legislation, on page 3. I assume you will read my introduction and incorporate those thoughts into your thinking when looking at the document.

Statement provided by Chief Bill Erasmus reads as follows: Thank you for providing the opportunity for the Dene Nation to make a submission to your committee on this important bill. It is unfortunate that you could not come north to be with us in person as we and others requested. The Dene have an important relationship with you. It is based on treaty. In 1899-1900, we entered into Treaty 8 with Great Britain on behalf of Canada. Again, in 1921, Treaty 11 was similarly concluded. Those agreements were peace and friendship treaties to provide for future relations. In the 1960s, we found out that Canada had a different interpretation of the treaties. They viewed them as instruments of surrender. This is when our leaders became concerned and organized themselves as the Indian Brotherhood of the N.W.T. They then proceeded to take Canada to court on the question of land ownership. In the end, Justice William Morrow concluded that there was no evidence to support surrender, rather that the Dene still maintained a interest in the land and Canada was obligated to deal fairly with them.

Mr. Chairman, that decision was made in 1973. From there on, the Dene and Métis of our land have been discussing on and off with Canada what is commonly called a land claim. Other people in the last two weeks have told you the history of our discussion leading up to November 1990, when Canada chose to no longer negotiate with all of our descendants.

We originally envisioned a land and water management that would cover the entire Mackenzie Valley with one overriding body that would serve the purpose of all our members. However, when Canada announced that they would go with regional claims our vision of one agreement with one regulatory system to cover all of the Mackenzie Valley vanished. The Dene Nation was told by the Gwich'in and Sahtu to no longer represent them in negotiations and proceeded to negotiate their own agreements. In the end, both agreements came before Parliament and the Senate of Canada and received approval. We did not object to either agreement. Not until later did we learn that their agreements contained language that went beyond their respective settlement areas.

It was not until 1994 that we learned that their agreements included our lands and our territories hundreds of miles to the south of them. Representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) asked to meet with our leaders about this. They met with our regions separately and received a great deal of opposition. For example, please refer to the Dene National Assembly motions. Since then, periodic correspondence has been exchanged. We do not consider this consultation. In fact, we have been informed that the chiefs of Akaitcho Territory were informed of this legislation via the media from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On the covering fax, it was noted that the media received it prior to them. It also made reference to a Priority Post package. The office of Akaitcho Territory have found no evidence of the material being sent to them. Priority Post cannot be the means to conduct business. This is such a fundamental and critical issue that they deserve to be notified in a proper manner.

Mr. Chairman, getting a press release is not sufficient notice. Priority Post packages cannot be considered sufficient notice of an intention by Parliament to fundamentally alter the treaty relationship with the Dene.

The following is an analysis of the legislation as proposed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This analysis is operating on two levels. It looks at the proposed legislation from a treaty perspective and from indigenous peoples' rights to lands and resources in a territory which remains under Dene title.

Chief Bill Erasmus: As national chief of the Dene Nation, I welcome this opportunity to make a presentation to you.

In analysing this document we are looking at it as proposed legislation which has implications for our treaty and aboriginal rights. We are looking at ways we can work with you so you understand and recognize that the lands we are talking about, as mentioned by our delegates before us, remain under Dene title and that is the reason why we are in negotiations with Canada.

If you look at the preamble to your legislation, it makes reference to the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements, which need to be fulfilled by Canada. We are saying if this is the purpose, to extend these boards into an area next to the settlement areas within the same geographic area, then we need to know that. There does not seem to be a problem with Canada fulfilling its obligation to these two entities. The difficulty arises in relation to the extension of the process to the whole of the Mackenzie area.

• 1655

The preamble makes mention of Canada's intention to review this legislation. We need to understand what the nature of this review is. We believe this should be a full public review, and again, the consent of the Dene is required. It is inappropriate for the federal government to determine this kind of scope and review without the consent of our people. Actually, we see this not as a matter of consultation but really as one of Dene consent.

When you look at the interpretation section you see that it gets specific about the Dene leadership. It says that “first nation” means “the Gwich'in First Nation, the Sahtu First Nation or a body representing the Dene or Metis of the North Slave, South Slave or Deh Cho region of the Mackenzie Valley”. We recommend that this section should be changed to read that “first nation” means “the Gwich'in First Nation and the Sahtu First Nation”.

Further, when you get to the definition of the Mackenzie Valley we suggest that the definition of the Mackenzie Valley should read that “Mackenzie Valley” means “that part of the Northwest Territories included within the accepted and ratified final agreement of the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements”.

When you move to your non-derogation clause, this clause must be intended to protect areas that have yet to reach final agreement with Canada. The difficulty with the non-derogation clause is the wording that includes the “Constitution” of Canada. This legislation makes it applicable, and in addition, the ambiguous language of existing treaty and aboriginal rights makes it difficult.

The Government of Canada's position is maintained: that the existing treaty rights are those that need to be negotiated with Canada, that in effect, article 35 in the Constitution is an empty box that needs to be filled.

Our people have maintained that existing treaty and aboriginal rights form a full box, which needs to be implemented. As this clause is drafted at present, it'll be left for future courts to determine. It also undermines and destroys the initiative to negotiate with Canada.

Subclause 5(2) should read: “this act applies in the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Métis settlement areas as set out in their settlement agreements with Canada”.

Also, when we look at part 4 of the legislation, we note that if this act will apply to only the Gwich'in and Sahtu who negotiated this without our people at the table, then part 4 should be deleted. There's no need for that part. If the government is to merely implement the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements, then it is not necessary. If there is a move to include it, it then becomes obvious that the federal government has another agenda.

A note on our negotiations and self-government discussions: Since 1990 the five regions of the Mackenzie Valley have been developing their own futures as their memberships have instructed them. More specifically, the Deh Cho and Akaitcho leadership have worked diligently to implement this right to self-determination.

Since the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements have been ratified, there's been a major shift in thinking and application by the federal government. I ask you to see the letter you have in your kits, which is dated October 17, 1997, from the Minister of Indian Affairs, Jane Stewart, to the chiefs of the Akaitcho territory. You'll notice that extinguishment is no longer a prerequisite to settling an agreement with Canada. They are also prepared to discuss governance at the same table, including resource revenue-sharing and taxation agreements. No longer do we only talk about land and resources based on extinguishment.

A very positive atmosphere has developed with this new government, especially with the new Minister of DIAND. This existing draft legislation will jeopardize the relationship that exists. One might even call it “bad faith negotiations” because it predetermines the outcome of negotiations and limits the ability of the parties to create their own end result.

We are not saying there will or should be five different land and water authorities. We recognize the necessity of working closely with other Dene and with Canada. However, negotiations must develop and determine the mechanisms, not water and land claims agreements to which we were not party, or Parliament, which takes away our freedom to develop our own future.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was released last year, makes it clear that Canada and our people must work together. No longer is it acceptable that someone else makes decisions for us.

• 1700

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. Our delegation is prepared to answer questions from your committee members.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Erasmus.

[Translation]

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much for letting us use the airwaves to communicate with you today.

First of all, on the beginning of your presentations, I understand the concern that there wasn't enough time to go through the proposed bill clause by clause, and that some of you presenters here would like to have somebody review these clauses for you and provide you with advice as to how this may affect you, since the specific agreement does not relate to the bands you are part of. However, in listening to the entire presentation, I become very concerned because I get the distinct feeling, based on the preambles and the information contained in these documents, that some of you people presenting today do not recognize Canada as having a legitimate interest or any authority at all, according to the way you've presented this, in the area that's in question.

In listening to what you were saying today, I have to ask you, do you consider yourself to be part of Canada?

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you for your question, Mr. Member.

We're talking about a part of Canada that has never been formally settled. We're discussing with Canada the whole issue of whether we are part of Confederation and what our relationship is. We have peace and friendship arrangements, which allow your people access to our territories. It doesn't give them authority over our people.

You now have an agreement with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu to do that. You have an arrangement there, but you don't have it with the rest of the Mackenzie Valley, which is about three-quarters of that land mass. So you really have a legal question that you have to deal with. We referred to Lord Denning's decision before Canada made its patriation attempts. Also, we've referred to Judge Morrow. I'd suggest your legal people look at that, because that decision maintains that we have an interest in this land.

That's what's forced Canada to the table. Prior to this, Canada said we didn't have any treaty or aboriginal rights, or if we did, we surrendered them in treaties or by legislation. I suggest to you that you have to look at that.

Mr. Mike Scott: With all respect, there is a legal case before the Supreme Court of Canada as we speak—and we expect the decision to be handed down any day now—that was brought by the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people of northwest British Columbia on the very issue of jurisdiction and ownership of land and resources. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled in that case. However, the lower court's rulings have been consistent to date in saying Canada has ultimate jurisdiction and authority. I know that's probably not what you want to hear, but that's what the most current legal jurisprudence in the land suggests at the present time.

I have a difficult time, in that if you consider yourself a nation and you consider yourself outside the jurisdiction and the authority of Canada, why are we even having this discussion?

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you again for your comments.

I want to remind you of the Meech Lake discussions and the Charlottetown accord. Those debates tried to deal with our people, and neither of them were passed, nor are they applicable in Canada. They tried to deal with Canada's laws of application and the question of whether or not they apply to us. Those questions were never answered.

That's why Canada is dealing with us. That's why there is a process of self-government. Canada recognizes that we have an inherent right. That's why we are considered special citizens in this country.

• 1705

As a final note, the Wet'suwet'en people are not the Dene of the Mackenzie Valley, so you cannot apply that decision specifically to our people. We are a totally different nation.

Mr. Mike Scott: I suspect we could go on here for awhile on a philosophical bent, but I'll pass over to the next questioner, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, please.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I would like to greet Bill Erasmus and propose that you allow me to devote one minute of the time allotted to me to Mr. Mercredi, who expected to meet Mr. Erasmus in person today, so that he can greet him. You can deduct that minute from my time. Are any of my colleagues opposed to this, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I agree with you, Mr. Bachand. After you have had the floor for five minutes, we could invite Mr. Mercredi to come and say hello.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Mercredi can come and say hello at the end. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I will not surprise you. Contrary to Mr. Scott, I'm not at all worried about what's going on in the case of Deh Cho. Moreover, I have many more questions to ask you about this.

In the summer of 1994, I travelled to Yellowknife. At the time, I didn't know either Bill Erasmus or the Dene. I wanted to see the region and I happened to pass by a street close to Ms. Blondin's office. I went in to the Dene office and I was welcomed. Unfortunately, Mr. Erasmus wasn't there, but I was given a great deal of documentation, for example on the meaning of the word "Dene", which means "our land". That was when I understood the great sovereign pride of the Dene of Yellowknife and of the entire region that is represented before us today.

I'm therefore not surprised by your attitude. Mr. Erasmus, we started to examine the amendments that you are proposing, and that is more or less what we asked the legislative counsel who will guide us when we table our own amendments. Among other things, you are proposing a definition of the Mackenzie Valley that could be limited to the Métis of the Sahtu and to the Gwich'in. You also stated that the current legislation contains provisions to the effect that if there are any future negotiations, the government will hold them as quickly as possible, and it could lead to amendments to Bill C-6.

The preamble states among other things that this cannot threaten ancestral rights. Obviously, I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that anything be imposed on someone because of what happened elsewhere. Because the Métis of the Sahtu and the Gwich'in have signed an agreement, there is now an attempt to extend the provisions of the bill to the entire Mackenzie Valley and go beyond that to other regions of the Mackenzie Valley where the First Nations have not yet negotiated self-government and land claims.

I just wanted to say that I largely share your point of view. What I had to say was more a comment than a question, because I found the presentations extremely clear. Contrary to Mr. Scott and probably all my other colleagues, that didn't scare me at all.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. You agree about the beauty of their territory?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, their land is very beautiful.

[English]

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Mike Scott: I'm not surprised, Claude; it's the same thing you want in Quebec.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for listening to Mr. Bachand's comments.

Was Ovide Mercredi going to make some comments?

The Chairman:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...committee, Mr. Mercredi will talk to you après.

Ms. Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Thank you for your long trip to Yellowknife. I'm the MP for the Yukon. Unfortunately, I'm not the NDP member for your territory.

I certainly support what you're asking for. I would like to clarify once more that you don't object to the Sahtu or the Gwich'in in Bill C-6. You do not want to be included in it right now.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Yes, that is correct, Ms. Hardy. We support their agreements, which are constitutionally protected documents. As we have indicated, we were never party to their discussions and until recently were not aware that they wanted to extend beyond their settlement areas. Therefore we're not prepared to meet that requirement, and ask that they go ahead with their agreement specifically to their settlement areas. We would be quite open to setting up a discussion on how we could work in complement with them until we have established our own mechanism in the future.

• 1710

Ms. Louise Hardy: What will you do if you are included in it as it stands?

Chief Bill Erasmus: If we are included, it would mean your committee did not recommend what we're asking. We would have to see how many people were in the House to vote, first of all. All of that would transpire. It would have to go through the Senate and so on. So we would have to look at all of the options before us if it were passed into law.

We don't want to fight Canada on this. We don't want to fight the Gwitch'in or the Sahtu. But if we're forced to, we will have to defend our own lands. People have given us the authority to protect them and care for our interests. We would have to look at the whole question, because it would be an entirely different question from the one we have before us today.

Ms. Louise Hardy: I imagine that would mean court costs, at the very least.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Yes, we would have to look at the legal challenge. That would be one of our options.

Ms. Louise Hardy: I wouldn't like to see that happen. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you. I'd also like to thank the group of native leaders and the Dene leader, Mr. Erasmus, for coming to speak with us today.

A number of very serious and very real issues have been raised at this table. I don't know if I have the answers to any of them, let alone all of them. But I certainly think we have to consider many of the things that were spoken about today.

From my personal point of view as a member of this committee, I'd like to establish at least a basic framework, so maybe you can understand a bit better what I think is the committee's position and what the committee's jurisdiction is here. This is a very important piece of legislation. It includes the entire Mackenzie watershed area, and we all understand that.

There are some plus things about this bill. I believe it's very much about giving increased jurisdiction and responsibility to the first nations in the area and to the local government of the Northwest Territories. I would suspect the increased jurisdiction and responsibility would some day be part of a devolution process that would lead to provincial status for that area. I'm speaking very hypothetically and I'm not speaking for the government. However, I am a part of that government.

I realize you have discussions under way with the Canadian government and directly with the minister. However, I don't see it as part of this committee's responsibility to comment or participate in your land claim agreements with the Government of Canada. We are here for a totally different reason.

I am extremely interested in the recommendations you make for amendments to the legislation and I'm going to take a very long, hard and serious look at them.

I won't get into some of the other areas I was interested in that you were talking about. I don't see them as areas we should be discussing today. But I have a further question to you on various provisions of Bill C-6 that call for public notification or, in some instances, consultation or public participation with respect to land and water management and environmental assessment.

That leads into another question. Bill C-6 proposes a three-step regime for environmental review consisting of a preliminary screening, which may or may not be followed by an environmental assessment and ultimately an environmental review. Would you care to comment on the environmental assessment and review portions of Bill C-6 as they relate specifically to first nations' jurisdiction, and responsibility to the land and the area that they live in?

• 1715

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you.

First of all, what this legislation would do is design a public governmental institution, and this is why people say it undermines the existing treaty right we have with Canada. The existing right recognizes that we have our own laws that need to be clarified with Canada and will apply to our people, and that Canada has its own laws...and it will apply to a great extent to the general public who are non-Dene. That's what we're trying to work out.

What this would do is supersede any of those kinds of discussions and it would establish public institutions in the north. It would establish a public body that would govern our lands and our people, and would govern future decisions. So that takes away our ability as first nations to govern our own peoples and our own memberships, and it's what we're opposed to.

In the end, if that's what our people negotiate and that's what they feel comfortable with, then, yes, we would be open to working with that. But it takes away our ability to decide for ourselves.

I'm not sure if that helps you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not sure it does either, Mr. Erasmus, but I understand exactly what you're saying.

We had a couple of prepared questions here, and I'd like to ask you one. Certainly one of them was the fact that first nations in the area were supposed to be given technical assistance and pre-knowledge of what was going on, and any assistance from the government to understand the issues and to present their case. Are you satisfied that has occurred? From my understanding, you're not satisfied that has occurred.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Throughout the process in the last couple of years, some money has been provided to analyse and go through the documentation, and if I am correct—because we didn't get all these documents at our office—I think something like 30 different drafts were looked at between the claimant groups and the federal government and the territorial government, which was also involved. But a minimum amount of money was provided to people to analyse the document.

I know Treaty No, 8 made reference in their submission to doing an analysis and handing that in in February of last year. I understood that they never got a response and their suggestions were never included in the proposed legislation.

So people are not happy with the process. We have a lot of people in our communities. We don't normally deal with English as our first language, and we need to translate documents. We need to have people completely understand the bigger picture and to determine how this is going to affect them.

Chief Lockhart mentioned the 50 pieces of subsequent legislation that are going to be amended. If we were to look at that legally and interpret it into our languages, it takes a lot of effort and it takes money and energy to do that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you very much. That's good.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. The last speaker will now be Mr. Bryden.

• 1720

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I just wanted to say that sometimes I think—and you're what, 2,000 or 3,000 miles away from those of us sitting here?—perhaps you have the wrong impression of who we are. You see me in my tie and my shirt and my jacket, but that's the uniform of Parliament. As for who I am really, I'm a man from a village of about 300 people in southern Ontario. It's a farming community. It's ordinary people who raise tomatoes and raise cows, and I'm the local bee-keeper. It is true that I, like you perhaps, have travelled fairly widely and have some broader experience. In fact, I have been all across the north and to Greenland, and I've been to every corner of the country now. I have to tell you I love Canada deeply—all corners, including your part of Canada.

However, I think you misunderstand what a committee like this is all about. This committee is really about ordinary Canadians talking to other ordinary Canadians and trying to resolve difficult issues like the creating of legislation. I can tell you that I encountered this particular piece of legislation only two weeks ago, so I don't have years and years of preparation.

I can't rule on all the legal nuances, as you have done. I can't, and quite frankly I'm not very interested in going back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. I'm not interested in a litany of court cases. I appreciate this might be something you want to do with the federal government when you're negotiating land claims, but what I came here for today, and why I wanted to meet you, was to get your input.

I wanted to get you to tell me, as one Canadian to another, as one Canadian in a region with a particular interest and a particular concern with preserving the culture and the environment of that region...so that we could work together and create legislation that may not be applicable to you now, but may be applicable to you later, and to perfect it and make it something that is worth while.

The intention, I thought, was correct. The intention was to try, as Mr. Keddy said, to devolve the control of development and the environment and culture onto the people who are closest to it. That is what we are trying to do.

I have one question to ask you. In preparing this legislation we have had discussions here, and have tried to find a way in which the legislation could express itself in a meaningful way to all the people it affects, and maybe involve not only the people who will be directly affected when it passes but those who will be affected later if it is adopted.

Can you find it acceptable that something is said in this legislation that basically expresses as a purpose that the legislation exists to give the opportunity for the people in the Mackenzie Valley region some control over their destiny, some control over their resources and over their environment for the benefit of all Canadians?

In the end it's the people who live there, whether they live in the Mackenzie Valley or, as my colleague does, in Quebec—who often speaks with the same rhetoric, if I may say so, as you have about sovereignty—about the needs, looking on past laws.... In the end, surely what we want to see is that it is the custodians of the region and the culture—whether they are francophones from Quebec or whether they are Dene from the Northwest Territories, from the semi-Arctic—to see that you take charge of your destiny, to be given the tools to do it in a responsible manner, but for the benefit of all Canadians. Can you do it for the benefit of all Canadians?

Chief Bill Erasmus: Thank you for your comments.

It's unfortunate that you're not interested in hearing our history with Canada. The reason we go back to 1763 is that this was when Great Britain made comment as to how our people had to be treated. Our people were never defeated in war. We are not subjects of the Crown, and that's what we're trying to tell you. That relationship has already been established in the past, and it's not rhetoric. It's Canadian fact.

I think you are obligated, as a member of Parliament, to inform your constituents and especially your fellow members in the House when you go forward after hearing this information as a committee member. You have to inform Canada. You're obligated as a member there, I believe, to inform them of the legal implications and indeed the necessity to work with us.

• 1725

Yes, we're quite open to working with Canada to do this in the best interests of all peoples, but we're saying do not do it at our expense. You have an agreement with the Sahtu and you have an agreement with the Gwitch'in. Have that legislation effective for their settlement area, and we have no problem with you.

In the meantime, we will set up a system of governance that recognizes our rights until we can put something more permanent in place. I don't think that will take a long time. We're at the table. We're trying to design those mechanisms. It's a matter of a couple of years until we have them in place.

All kinds of things are happening in the north. In two years the north will be divided. There will be another territory. They have had a chance to develop this as they see fit. They will have a regime in place which they are quite happy with, and we also support them. We are asking that we be given the same opportunity.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me correct you on one thing. I'm a historian, and I'm very familiar with Canadian history. Indeed, I know quite a bit about aboriginal history and have my own personal collection of books on the subject. So I'm not coming to this question from a position of ignorance or a position of lack of interest.

What I'm saying to you, though, is that I came to this table as an ordinary Canadian to ask you as a fellow human being what we can do with this legislation that would satisfy you not only now but in the future. Can we say in the legislation that we're trying to design something for the people of the area...whether they have signed a land claims agreement or not, can we not say something in this legislation that inspires future generations; that says it's not a selfish thing, it's not something just for the people of the region, it's something for all Canadians? Maybe, in a sense, because it's such a unique area of the world, what we're really doing here is trying to protect a resource that is a world resource.

I came to you as an ordinary Canadian. A parliamentarian is not a lawyer. The legal arguments should be in another forum. All I want to know from you is just one thing, and that is whether you support our trying to design this legislation so it has a purpose that will serve the people of the north, regardless of who they are, to enable them to have a say in their environment and the development of their environment for the benefit of all Canadians. Can we do that? Is that something you would like to see in this legislation? It is not there now.

Chief Bill Erasmus: Again, speaking from human to human, you can design the legislation to take care of the Gwitch'in and the Sahtu needs, as the humanitarian you appear to be. I'm sure you don't want to impose that on our people. That's what we're asking for.

We are prepared to work with Canada until we have an agreement in place. We don't need legislation to work with Canada, to have an arrangement where we can care for our own lands and resources, water and land management. You don't need legislation to do that. All you need is Canada's goodwill. That's what we're asking for.

If you look at the royal commission report that commissioners Erasmus and Dussault put forward, they speak precisely to this. For too long have people in Ottawa and other places tried to control our lives. That's why Canada is in such a mess.

So I bring it back to you. I know you must be in a difficult position, because this situation should have been taken care of before it came to you. However, I think what happened was that the bureaucrats have run with this. They have taken it. They have been told for the last three years we're not happy. We proposed suggestions. For some reason they never brought them forward.

As parliamentarians, you have control over your government. We would be quite open to working with you. We want to have a good relationship. We're not here before you today to set up bad press with you or bad relations. We know we have to work with you in the future, and all of the people here are respected leaders in their communities. As citizens, they have to go back to their homes and work with their families and their own people.

• 1730

Up here we have very few reserves. The non-Dene live amongst us, and we generally share a lot of the same functions. We live amongst each other, and we have to look each other in the eye. All we ask is that other people respect that and work with us.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

[Translation]

I know that many of you have travelled for many hundreds of kilometres to get to Yellowknife in the last few hours. It was fortunate that the weather was good in your area.

We all want to thank you for your testimony. We have a great deal of respect for your people. We here in Ottawa are very proud to have had this opportunity to talk to you. Our committee may some day have an opportunity to go and see for ourselves the beauty of your lands.

I thank you very much.

Before closing, I'd like to raise two issues. We have received a request from a task force for a 45 minute meeting on December 11. This comes from the City of Yellowknife and concerns the Diamond Industry Development Task Force, a delegation of six people. Do members of the committee wish to accept this request?

Some honourable members: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Hadn't our committee agreed to close off all testimony on December the 4th?

The Chairman: Yes, tomorrow.

Mr. Claude Bachand: By accepting this request, we would be making an exception.

The Chairman: The meeting in question is not about the bill.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Oh, it's not about the bill?

The Chairman: I am sorry, I should have stated at the outset that this request is not related to the examination of Bill C-6. You are correct, we will hear the last testimony concerning Bill C-6 tomorrow, December 4th.

Mr. Claude Bachand: This is nevertheless a request from a committee that wants to meet with us.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Haven't our committee made a commitment not to allow any specific Native group or anyone else dictate our schedule? This would be a precedent. If we agree to meet them, when an aboriginal group asks to appear, we will also have to present the request to the committee.

The Chairman: You're right, and that's why I put it to you. I didn't want to come here and announce that that would be it...

Mr. Claude Bachand: And impose it on us.

The Chairman: And impose it on you. I was asking for your opinion. We could postpone it till later, after the holidays.

Mr. Claude Bachand: If my colleagues agree, I also agree. However, we run the risk of starting a process under which henceforth, every time we receive a letter from someone who wants to appear, the request will have to be put to the committee which will then have to examine and determine whether or not it will invite the person or group in question.

The Chairman: Don't forget that our schedule is already very tight between now and December 11th and the House of Commons will be adjourning the next day. If we decide to invite these representatives of the diamond industry, we could ask them to come when Parliament resumes next year.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Then the representatives of the nickel industry in Voisey's Bay might also want to come.

The Chairman: That's right. I suggest that this be postponed to the New Year.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, but I would like us to discuss this once and for all. I think the wise solution would be to postpone it. Our committee should hold discussions in this regard when Parliament resumes and determine whether it wants to change its procedures with regard to these groups. If my colleagues want to change the procedure, then we will change it, but for the time being, I would like to maintain things the way they are.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand, you're right and that's very wise of you. It would be preferable for our committee to meet and discuss it. You are right, I agree. It comes from the floor and above all it comes from a good member of Parliament.

Don't forget that after our meeting, we've set aside two or three minutes for Grand Chief Ovide Mercredi to come and sit down next to Grand Chief Bachand.

This meeting stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.