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]

Thursday, December 4, 1997

ERRATUM (effective Tuesday, January 27, 1998)

The Evidence posted Monday, January 5, 1998, incorrectly attributed the opening statement of the witnesses from the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Working Group (at 11:26) to Ms. Heidi Klein instead of Ms. Alestine André. The reversed attribution occurred throughout the Evidence.

The following text has been corrected accordingly.

• 1012

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): We are ready to begin.

Today 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 others Acts.

Today is the last day we will be hearing witnesses on Bill C-6 and I would like to thank the members who have been present as well as all of our witnesses.

Today we will be hearing from Mr. Gary Bohnet, president of the Métis Nation-NWT, and Mr. George Kurszewski, Chief Negotiator from the South Slave Métis Tribal Council. Do you have a statement to make?

[English]

Do you have a statement? Ten minutes.

Mr. Gary Bohnet (President, Métis Nation, Northwest Territories): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

Just briefly, I have a few things about the Métis Nation, Northwest Territories.

We're the Métis of the western Northwest Territories. We're located from the 60th parallel at Fort Smith to Aklavik in the Mackenzie Delta, representing approximately between 5,000 and 7,000 Métis in the Mackenzie Valley.

We have four Métis community organizations in the delta, or the Gwich'in settlement area: Aklavik, Inuvik, Fort McPherson, Tsiigehtchic. In the Sahtu we have Fort Good Hope, Norman Wells and Tulita, and then many, many more in the western part of the territory.

We've been aware of this particular act for an awfully long time. When I say “aware of it”, we've been taking positions in regard to this act since as early as 1994. In fact, for your information, on July 4, there's a letter here that's out there—we had sent a letter to the Honourable Ron Irwin in which we outlined our position. Our position at the time was basically that we continue and support the implementation of the Mackenzie Valley management boards for the settled areas, the Gwich'in and Sahtu. There was a legal obligation by the government to fulfil their land claims. We supported it then, and we continue to support it in those particular regions that are settled. At the same time, we felt that in the areas it was not settled this particular act or regime should not be imposed on them. We continue to take that particular position.

• 1015

Interestingly enough, in the summer of 1995, at the Métis national assembly that took place in the Northwest Territories, with delegates from all over the western Arctic, including those settled areas, a resolution was passed unanimously.

I'm going to quote from a portion of that particular resolution:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Métis Nation - Northwest Territories continue their support for the work being done in relation to the federal government obligations as a result of the Gwich'in and Sahtu final agreement;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Executive of the Métis Nation - Northwest Territories continue to lobby the federal government of Indian and Northern Development to provide the resources necessary for the Métis Nation - Northwest Territories to consult with First Nations of the North Slave, South Slave, Deh Cho, Gwich'in and Sahtu to develop an interim regime that allows for full implementation of the Gwich'in and Sahtu final agreements without impairing the ability of the regions lacking such a comprehensive claim to deal with important issues from their own perspective.

That resolution was passed unanimously.

Our concerns have continuously been put forward to the federal government. To say it briefly and straightly, I think officials in the federal government are basically making a serious mistake by implementing this particular agreement throughout the whole western Arctic. I think it poses significant problems to the Métis and to other first nations in those regions that have not settled it.

With that opening remark, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to allow my colleague, the spokesperson for the South Salve Métis, to talk.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. George Kurszewski (Chief Negotiator, South Slave Métis Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The South Slave Métis are actually the largest group of Métis who live in the Northwest Territories. The Dene-Métis agreement, which is part of our history, we were also part of. Today we are negotiating a land and resources agreement and a self-government agreement with the Government of Canada to clarify what our position is, what our lands are, what our rights are in the South Slave region in the Northwest Territories.

We find that this bill undermines some very basic principles that we feel are a part of this country. Some of these principles I want to mention are in support of what Mr. Bohnet has told you.

We don't believe one part of the country has a mandate to make decisions for another jurisdiction or another part of this country. We don't believe the Gwich'in have the right, in a democratic country, to make a decision for the South Slave Métis. We find this offensive. If the Government of Canada and Parliament supports this type of principle, then it should be okay for Quebec to make decisions for B.C., or vice versa, or for any other part of the country to decide matters for another part of the country in a different jurisdiction.

Another principle that we find is a problem here is that when the Gwich'in were negotiating their land claim agreement, we always gave full support to these people. We consider them to be relatives. We passed motions at our assemblies giving support to these people and we never interfered in their process. We feel that is a very important principle.

However, here we are at negotiations, finally, in 1997. This is the year our negotiations started. Cabinet approved a mandate for our negotiations in April of this year. Then we find the Gwich'in making a move, through the courts, through legal action, to force the federal government to implement over us a Mackenzie-wide regime that actually got its design from an eighties mentality.

In the eighties the Denis-Métis process—and I was then a senior negotiator for the Denis-Métis in that process—had come up with this regime that was generally a way to empower public government in aboriginal territory. That agreement was not approved in 1990 when it came to the assemblies, so that agreement disappeared. However, in going to regional claims, the Gwich'in picked up that agreement and brought it into force in 1992 in a regional nature.

• 1020

Since then, things have changed. Government has changed. Policies have changed. People have learned things since then. In fact, something else has changed that changes the picture quite a bit. Self-government is now a matter in negotiations. In the 1990 agreement of the Dene Métis, which the Gwich'in claim is based on, self-government was not a part of it.

So obviously without self-government all you had were land management and resource management issues to deal with. These issues were negotiated in the context of public government taking charge of lands and resources. Today, that's not the case. Today, with self-government agreements, aboriginal governments have jurisdiction over their own lands and resources. This bill doesn't respect that. This bill respects only what took place in the 1980s. That's not fair. This is 1997. We're heading into the next millennium here, and this agreement is outdated. This bill is outdated.

We made this case a number of years back when it was first introduced to us, and we were not allowed to take part in the consultation process. We asked for resources to take part in the drafting of this bill, to take part in the consultation process. We were not allowed, in fact, for the past three to four years—I think it's four and a half, they said. I found out just three weeks ago, when the officials came up from Ottawa to Yellowknife and had an information session with the aboriginal governments in the west. At that session, I found out that the Gwich'in—one of my colleagues who sits on the aboriginal summit with me in particular—had been involved in the drafting for the past four and a half years. We didn't know this. We were never given that opportunity.

We find it very offensive that the Government of Canada would in fact allow and support part of our country, the Gwich'in Nation, to be involved in the drafting of this bill, but at the same time would not allow the South Slave Métis to be involved in the drafting of this bill. All we could do was attend information sessions. That's not consultation. We don't think this has met the test of consultation that this type of pact requires.

We find a lot of things wrong with the process, and we find a lot of things wrong with the bill itself. I've brought this document down here for you. I'm sorry that we don't have translation of this document. Like I said, we are very tight on human resources and financial resources, so we were unable to get this to you in time in a translated form. However, you have time to look at this. I don't want to repeat things that you've heard already. I know we're at the end of your consultation or your work on this particular bill, and I know that a lot of other groups have presented to you certain concerns. I hope our paper clarifies our concerns. Some of them are similar to those of other groups, other governments, but I think I want to raise here some of these that speak to the Métis in particular.

One of the glaring omissions in this bill is the fact that clause 5, which deals with land claims and aboriginal rights, excludes self-government. It doesn't allow for self-government negotiations, which are taking place now, to be protected. It doesn't allow for these self-government negotiations to conclude management regimes, to conclude negotiations on decision-making that will then change the bill. It doesn't allow for that. It overrides these, and we find it very offensive that this type of bill would override any opportunity in the future for self-government agreements to make a better decision on how regimes should exist in our region in particular, and maybe in the Mackenzie Valley.

I encourage you to check out the detailed recommendations that we make on amendments, but this is our second position. Our first position is that the bill should not be allowed to take place in our region. In fact, it should take place in a phased nature. The Gwich'in may be ready for this. We support this kind of concept because that's what they wanted, that's what they negotiated, that's what they agreed to. We don't oppose that; let them do it. But we're not ready for it. Our own negotiations will determine how we handle our lands and resources.

• 1025

This bill overrides any kind of decision that the Métis government will make on Métis lands and resources. Our own land use plan for our own lands is subject to a land use plan developed by this type of regime. We find that offensive, because our decision, our future, is taken out of our hands by some kind of bureaucratic system designed back in the 1980s that is made to apply now. It doesn't make sense to us.

So our first position is, don't do this to us. We don't deserve this. We deserve the same kind of treatment as the Gwich'in received. We deserve the same kind of treatment as other Canadians receive in other jurisdictions. It's up to us to make decisions on how we live in our own region.

We support the principle of integrated resource management, but give us a chance to input into how that will work. We have good ideas. The Métis in the Northwest Territories have been a big part of the development of the Northwest Territories. We've been a big part of the development of western Canada. We've contributed, over the last couple of hundred years, in big ways: the voyageurs, the fur trade. All the way down through our history, if you look back, you see Métis people contributing.

We'd like to continue to do that. We're a co-operative people. We like to take part in deciding things for our own country. When this type of thing happens, we get very frustrated and we don't understand why this is happening. I guess there may be some reasons that people can tell us, but this is coming down on us from somewhere else, and we do not deserve that. Give us more credit. Give us the same kinds of opportunities that government has given the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. Accord us the same respect and we'll contribute at least in the same manner. We'll do our best.

I don't want to take any more time. If there are particular questions on particular issues on this bill, I'd be happy to address them. We've tried to look at our particular concern. I would be happy to respond. I'll give the committee a chance to question us.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kurszewski.

[Translation]

You are excellent representatives of the Métis in your region and you are, I think, a leader in your community.

We will now move on to the question period. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

you have five minutes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you very much.

I really wish I'd had this beforehand, because I would have liked to have read through it. It looks pretty complete. You've presented a passionate case for your people, which brings me to a couple of questions about your comments on democracy being bypassed with respect to your region.

I understand the councils in the regions are supposed to nominate their members to the land use planning boards and what not. If democracy is important to you, in this case, what are your feelings about an elected board from anyone in your region, with no restriction on their membership on boards, if this happens to be implemented in one way or another? Can you give me your comments on that?

Mr. George Kurszewski: Thank you, Mr. Konrad, for that question. My comment on that is this.

We got a letter from the previous Minister of Indian Affairs asking us to recommend an individual to sit on the board for our region. We know that also Treaty 8, who live in the same region, got the same letter. So we know that Treaty 8 will, in this case, make a nomination. So will we. The minister will decide which of the two nominees, from the Métis or Treaty 8, will sit on the board.

Let's say he chooses the Treaty 8 nominee, representing the Dene. That means the Métis, who represent 3,000 people in our region, will not be on the board, will not have a say at all, any kind of say, in this management regime. We find that totally unacceptable.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So you'd be prepared, as I've suggested, for an open election to the board?

Mr. George Kurszewski: Actually we challenge a principle that occurs earlier, and that is in the design of the board. Right now the board is set up in a public government system that does not allow for aboriginal governments making an intergovernmental agreement with the public system. We don't mind taking part in an integrated regime, but we have our own government.

• 1030

We have a Métis government, and we can make an agreement to be part of an integrated management regime with the public system without a problem. We do that at different levels on different things and we could do this here. But here we're asked to forget about our status as Métis, to sit on a public board, swear an oath to the board's objectives, and sit under a chairperson. Our recommendations would then fall short of what we see now in the 1990s, where aboriginal governments are building relationships with either municipal, provincial, or territorial governments, and we see that as a better way. There's a new way of doing things. It looks better; it works better.

Mr. Gary Bohnet: If I can add something to this and put it really simply, who represents the Métis on management structures and boards or whatever? The Métis will determine how they choose the method of their people who will represent them, but it must be Métis. Nobody else is going to represent Métis issues on Métis lands and resources.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Regarding my question, Métis, Gwich'in, Sahtu, whatever, can sit at all levels of government everywhere. In fact, we had the previous leader of the Government of the Northwest Territories, I believe it was, who is now president of the Gwich'in—not the tribal council; whatever.

Anyone who like myself moved to the territories, even if I lived in the Gwich'in area all my life and my children grew up there and their grandchildren, would be disenfranchised from that type of government. That concerns me.

Mr. George Kurszewski: What type of government do you mean? The public government?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Not the public government, but the Métis, say. Suppose we lived in a region there—

Mr. George Kurszewski: I guess we have to talk about the inheritance the Métis have. The Métis inherit land from their ancestors. Our responsibility to manage the land comes through a long history. We've been doing it for a long time, and we intend to continue to do that. That's our responsibility. We have to take care of a part of this country and that's what we've been doing.

In doing that, in negotiations, we give up. In the Dene-Métis negotiations, the aboriginal people—in this case, the Métis—gave up 80% of the land to the public system, to people like you who are part of the public, and kept 20%. That's a fact. We keep 20% of our traditional territory, basically. That's the land we're looking after; that's the land we're concerned about. How we work with the other 80% of the land—that's given over to the public system.

Residents, people who move up there to live and make a home, are not cut out of decision-making. In fact, they have a 50% representation on those boards you see, such as this one. I don't think anybody is left out. In fact, we have a problem in that our ability to make decisions on our 20% is curtailed by the way the bill is set up, because the people who make decisions over the 80% also make decisions over our 20%.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think we're coming from different areas. I would like you to know that when you talk about people like me, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. One of my great-grandmothers was also a native.

Mr. George Kurszewski: I'm talking about my region.

Mr. Gary Bohnet: Even if you're one of our long-lost Métis brothers....

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm a Canadian, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, please proceed.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): It is a pleasure to welcome you, Mr. Bohnet, as well as your negotiator. I have very good memories of my stay among the Métis. In changing offices, I made a point of moving the arrow-head sashes that were given to me by the Métis when I went to Yellowknife to meet with them several years ago. These are very precious souvenirs for me. I am also very sympathetic to the arguments that are brought before us.

Oddly enough, there are five regions in the Mackenzie Valley. The Gwich'in and the Sahtu have appeared before us, as well. They say that they don't have a problem with the land claim agreements that provide for a bill, which is the bill before us today, extending to the entire Mackenzie Valley.

The three other regions, which do not yet have land claim agreements or self-government, are opposed, and I understand that. Moreover, I asked the Gwich'in at some point if they would be prepared to accept the terms of a bill flowing from a land claim and self-government agreement they had not yet signed. The Chief smiled.

• 1035

I have trouble understanding how one or two regions can impose an agreement on the entire Valley when the agreement has not been signed by everyone. I think you adopted a good policy approach to the problem.

I would like you to react to the bill as it stands. The government officials and those who drafted the bill tell us that there are provisions to include people who have not yet signed. Among other things, the preamble to the bill states:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada intends to review, in consultation with first nations of the Mackenzie Valley, pertinent provisions of this Act in relation to negotiations for self-government with those first nations;

That means that once they have negotiated self-government with you, they will agree to amend Bill C-6 if there are amendments that need to be made. That's the first thing.

Secondly, you talked about the inherent right to self-government, which is a right that is recognized in clause 35. Subclause 5(2) of the bill states:

...nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples...

You are all familiar with section 35 of the Constitution.

So we are being told that there is no need to worry, because the bill will probably be amended for those who have not yet negotiated their land claims.

On the other hand, there is the other policy principle to force the other regions to accept what the first two regions have signed. So I would like to know if having these provisions in the bill reassures you or whether you maintain that an agreement negotiated with just two specific regions within the Mackenzie Valley cannot be imposed on the other regions.

[English]

Mr. Gary Bohnet: We'll probably both answer this one, but I'll take a shot at it first.

We've been in negotiations of one sort or the other for the last 25 years. We know how the public servants work. We've negotiated with them many times. But there's a reality out there. We're not so naive. The reality of it is that once a bill is settled and legislated, when you get to the negotiation table, the maximum you can get if it's legislated is what other people have got. The negotiators opposing you or who you're negotiating with come back and say, here's the new act; this is as far as we can go; that's the limit. So in fact they are basically pre-imposing positions through an act that's going to affect three full regions of the western Arctic.

Mr. George Kurszewski: Thank you for the question.

Self-government is very important to us. We believe these agreements will result in a better way of making decisions in our part of the country, and we need to protect that. We feel in this case the bill itself, if it is amended to give the same importance to self-government agreements as it gives to land claims agreements, will be an improvement. However, that still presents a major obstacle.

We don't see the need for a rush on this one. We know there is a commitment coming from the Gwich'in agreement within a certain timeframe they have missed, but that's because government has been slow to settle all the regions. Maybe it's slow—not to blame just the government—because the nature of it is slow in the reaching of negotiations or agreements with other regions.

We're saying there is no pressing need, there is no emergency, in the western territory for this bill to be imposed now. It can wait another couple of years. Our negotiations will be completed in another two or three years, and Treaty 8 negotiations hopefully within the same timeframe. The Dogribs expect to have an AIP in the springtime, in 1998.

What is the rush? Why are we rushing towards this type of regime when we know negotiations are going on right now, they will be completed soon, and they will actually have input into regimes or will address this very subject itself? We don't see the rush, and we don't think we have to rush.

• 1040

The Chairman: Madam Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): The way this is set up right now it would dilute your say over that 20%. I just want to clarify that. So you may not have any say if there are lands that are overlapping. You might not have anyone on the board to protect that 20% of your land. Could you just elaborate on that?

Mr. George Kurszewski: That's definitely very true and is extremely scary to us. In the current proposal, with ten board members and one chairman, we contemplate the possibility that we will have no one on the board. Our lands may end up being 20,000 to 25,000 square miles within a region that's over 100,000 square miles, and we will have land use plans of our own. We will have a purpose for our own lands. We will be doing things to develop our own economies. All of that may be for naught, because this board can overrule all that.

We don't feel that's a very good system. It makes it extremely risky for us to even put resources into developing our own plans if in the final analysis they can be turned around and quashed by other regions.

The board itself is representative of five regions. In the Delta region the Gwich'in region would have two appointees, one public and one Gwich'in; the Sahtu would have one public, one Gwich'in, all the way down through to our region. Other regions could be in charge of the land use plans for our lands. That's not the way we do business. We've never operated like that. We find that principle unacceptable.

Ms. Louise Hardy: If this goes through, what will you do in your land claims? How will that change your method of negotiating?

Mr. George Kurszewski: It undermines the integrity of our own table to have the freedom to negotiate a proper agreement between our people and the representatives of Canada. It undermines that integrity because already something is there leading us in a certain direction, telling us that someone else has made this decision for us.

That really challenges the integrity of our table, and we don't see that happening in the other land claims agreements. We don't see our region or other regions taking the integrity away from the Gwich'in table or the Sahtu table. But now we find our own table having its integrity challenged by someone else, and that's unacceptable.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hardy.

We will now give the floor to Mr. Patry, who will share his time with Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Kurszewski. I'll make one comment and ask one question. You mentioned at the beginning of your submission that you were not consulted. In fact, you just read about this bill in the last couple of months.

It was my understanding, according to the department, that the Métis Nation twice accepted $20,000, in 1994-95 and 1995-96, to study this bill. It's just a comment. On the other hand, I was told you met twice in Yellowknife with the department.

My question is with regard to land claim agreements. It's my understanding that subclause 5(1) says land claim agreements will prevail over this act. Is it your understanding also that your land claim agreement will prevail over Bill C-6?

Mr. George Kurszewski: Maybe I'll address your last question first, as it's more technical.

Indeed, land claim agreements will prevail. However, today's land claim agreements have a second feature. Self-government agreements are added to them and they also have to prevail, which is one big omission we see.

In terms of the consultation requirement, I mentioned I found out only three weeks ago that the Gwich'in were involved in drafting this document. We weren't accorded that same opportunity in the drafting.

The Métis Nation is an umbrella organization that represents the regions on certain matters. The South Slave Métis stand on their own two feet on this. The Métis Nation can answer to whatever dollars the federal government has accorded it. The South Slave Métis in our region have not had any resources. We have attended three information sessions, I believe, but we don't consider that consultation.

Mr. Gary Bohnet: This type of question usually comes up and I'll tell you why. I guess this is my answer to it as far as the consultation process.

• 1045

One of the things I'll tell you is that when it comes to consultation, maybe you should come north. Take a look at the north to see the distances and the remoteness of our communities when it comes to the cost of flying around. For example, it costs us more to bring somebody from Inuvik to Yellowknife than it costs me to fly from Yellowknife to Ottawa.

As far as the $20,000, that amount is peanuts for bringing together a representative group of people as diverse as the Métis of the territories. Most of the stuff was not consultation. I reject the idea that it was consultation. Basically, it was a presentation by officials.

The document, which you have seen, is so technical and so far out in outer space that most people can't understand it even if they have a technical background.

It was peanuts. I reject the idea that this was consultation. The department should be embarrassed if they call that consultation. That includes the boys at the back here.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Just very quickly, in clause 41, under the powers of boards, by underlining “may” in that section you quoted, you correctly recognized that the planning boards have the discretion to accept the planning of a settlement area or first nation.

What would happen in your opinion, though, if we changed the “may” to “shall”? That's the only way you can go. No matter what you say about where you are in your negotiations or whatever else, if you look at this clause and how it can be made to apply, if you change “may” to “shall”, wouldn't you get a situation where the planning board wouldn't need to exist at all? If you change “may” to “shall” and you give every community and settlement area absolute jurisdiction over its own planning, there's no point even having a planning board. Is that not so?

Mr. George Kurszewski: I don't believe that is so. I think there's a certain level of decision-making that should be respected in the region. I think there's a certain level of co-operation between governments, the aboriginal government and the public system, that's required. I think this kind of co-operation and discussion should be allowed to take place in a free way, without a gun to your head.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, that's what “may” says. If you change it to “shall”, there's no discussion. You Balkanize your planning. You get a situation whereby every group has a planning board or a plan, and that plan takes priority over the collective. You can only go one way or the other.

In my view, when we put “may” in, you're saying to the overall planning board that it shall listen to the plans of other areas, but it has to make a decision in the end based on the interests of the entire region, not in one community. There's no way to go.

This is what applies in any regime anywhere in the country. You're going to find that the local planning board has to defer to the decisions of the regional planning board. There's no other way.

Mr. George Kurszewski: Are you telling me that the land use plans developed in Ontario can be overruled by land use plans developed by a board that includes other provinces?

Mr. John Bryden: It always works that way. Certainly, I don't know whether it applies from provinces to the federal government, but certainly from—-

Mr. George Kurszewski: No, it doesn't.

Mr. John Bryden: —-municipality to region, it does.

Mr. George Kurszewski: That's why we're having a problem of communication here. Look at the Northwest Territories. It's one-third of Canada. The South Slave region is bigger than the maritime provinces.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, but how many people are you?

Mr. George Kurszewski: How many people are we?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

Mr. George Kurszewski: I realize that 90% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border, so I'm telling you that we are not a big population, but we look after a big country.

Mr. John Bryden: This is the point: you don't. Canada looks after the big country. You're not a nation state and you never shall be.

Mr. George Kurszewski: We're not a nation state. Let's not go there. That's not what we're saying.

We're saying we're people who have responsibilities. We've looked after that part of the country since time immemorial. We've been there. We're still there. We're still looking after it.

Right now, our role in being a part of this country is being challenged. We want to be a co-operative part of this country.

• 1050

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, you're not a province. I'm not going to have 40 provinces north of Saskatchewan.

Mr. George Kurszewski: That's not what we're saying.

Mr. John Bryden: That is what you're saying if you say you will not respect any higher authority in planning.

Mr. George Kurszewski: We're not saying that either. We're saying we agree.

Mr. John Bryden: All I can say is if it says “may” it means people are going to talk. If you say “shall”, which is your only other way to go, then people aren't going to talk. Everyone is going to have sovereignty.

Usually my friend across the way likes it when I say sovereignty. I'm not going to say separatism.

Mr. Gary Bohnet: Mr. Chairman, if I can say something regarding the whole issue of the remark on population, it's one of those things that really doesn't have a big bearing on this particular act whatsoever. One of the things we're hoping is we have to look at some type of integrated management system. We will look at that. But having some type of regime that is imposed on us by people south of 60, mainly this regime, officials and that, who have done a very poor job of managing the resources, lands and water, whatever you call them, their jurisdictions trying to impose some regime on us.... I think not.

I'll leave it at that.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may conclude, Mr. Chairman, I'll be very—

The Chairman: No; in the second round. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bohnet, since I come from an isolated region that is 802,000 square kilometres north of the 60th parallel, Abitibi, I understand you very well.

[English]

Mr. Gary Bohnet: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I take it you find cold comfort in the comfort clause in the bill, but I want to get into a different area of the discussion here. You want to see Bill C-6 apply only to that little chunk of the area and yet you have pipelines built and proposed. You have mines, you have the power corporation with generating facilities and transmission lines operating throughout the whole region, which is absolutely necessary for development.

We've heard the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines and other groups who have expressed a concern that, for goodness' sake, let's have one regime that governs the entire area. This is also from the leader of the Northwest Territories. If there is a multiplicity of regimes, then planned development is going to leave, and it may not be before they've mined the rest of the earth that they come back to the Northwest Territories looking for these types of things.

How do you respond to that concern? When you say, let's have a division into this bid, this law applies to that bid over there, and we have a different set of regulations.... Those regulations and acts have also been identified as deficient. What's your response to that?

Mr. George Kurszewski: You have to know the Northwest Territories to understand that.... Right now, of course, this bill doesn't apply; it's something being proposed.

The current situation is what you describe as the problem. It hasn't stopped Cominco mines from opening a mine in our region at Pine Point for 25 years, taking all the high-grade lead and zinc, taking off out of there and leaving a bunch of holes. It hasn't stopped Giant and Conwest mines from putting all kinds of tunnels under Yellowknife, digging out the gold. It hasn't stopped Norman Wells' development, nor has it stopped the Beaufort Sea. It certainly hasn't stopped BHP from coming into Dogrib country and claiming all the subsurface resources there to develop for their diamond mining aspirations.

So there is no negative impact with the current system of decision-making and review on development in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So you basically reject that argument out of hand.

Mr. George Kurszewski: Yes, out of hand. The evidence is there. It speaks for itself. Check the stock market.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That certainly isn't the view of most other people we've had at our hearings here. I suppose it's hard to prove when you don't see it.

• 1055

I think I'm going to leave my questioning at that. I don't really have another one, so I'll just pass it on.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. I'm sorry, but we will have to follow the procedure as planned. We will go to Mr. Finlay, who will be followed by Mr. Fournier and Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

you have five minutes.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen.

I just shared a word with my colleague: it sounds as though we're back to square one. Mr. Kurszewski, your comments sound very much like what I heard a year ago and the year before that from Mr. Mercredi. I have a great difficulty with your problem. You say on one hand you recognize the value of an ecosystem approach, you recognize that all of nature works together, etc., and then you say, however, when it comes to self-government, you're not going to obey that principle; you're going to decide what happens in your 20%. There are other twenty percents and five percents and ten percents all through the north and all through this country, and what works in a modern democracy is going to have to work in Canada. And you admit to being part of Canada.

You say to me you were never given the opportunity. I read three resolutions yesterday that were passed in 1994 and in 1995 that in effect said, “We, the Métis” or “We, the Dogrib”, etc., “are going to do everything in our power to stop a land management and a resource management act”. You seem to have effectively done that for yourself by simply staying away or not reading the drafts that were sent or whatever. That's going to get you nowhere, and it's going to get Canada nowhere.

What is good for the Gwich'in and Sahtu is apparently not good for you. That's another problem I have.

It's not true that this act can overrule all that. You said land claims are covered but self-government is not. Well, I beg to differ. This act, in subclause 5(2), says, “recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. This bill also says that the Government of Canada intends to review, in consultation with first nations, the pertinent Mackenzie Valley provisions of the act in relation to negotiations for self-government with those first nations.

The Métis are a first nation, as I understand the Constitution and section 35.

You say this has not stopped Cominco. This act is not in effect. That's what we're dealing with: land use plans in which the Métis and the people of the north have a say. What happened 25 years ago may not have been the right thing—I happen to think it wasn't the right thing—but this act is designed to see that the people of the area will have equal voice in those decisions, so we don't have the arm of Great Slave Lake polluted by Conwest so that the fish aren't edible. That's what we're about.

Sure, we have a development in Norman Wells and we had an inquiry about the pipeline. I know the pipeline that was proposed was not built, but one of the witnesses came and said to me “Oh yes, but this pipeline was built”. Yes, it was, from Norman Wells down to northern Alberta, not where the caribou migrate, and anyway, it's underground, and it's not 48 inches, it's 12 inches or whatever. It has had very little environmental impact.

We want the Métis to be part of the development of the north, part of this country, but this.... You talk about public government. Your government will be a public government. There's no such thing as private government, unless you want a dictatorship, and that's all there is to it. It has to be public. It has to be scrutinized by the people. It has to take input from the people. It has to recognize what the people want.

It also has to recognize that nobody is going to get everything they want. The people of my town in southern Ontario don't get everything they want. There are two sides or three sides or fifteen sides to every question. But we think that with acts like this and with giving the people who are indigenous and who are there....

.100

I respect fully your concern for the environment—I hold it myself—but we have to deal with it together.

You talked somewhere here about your own land and development. Well, the people of the north right now are supported largely by the people of the south, by all those people who live within 100 miles of the American border.

The only department whose income went up in the first year of our mandate was aboriginal affairs, because there are more aboriginals, a fast-growing population. They need service.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. George Kurszewski: Thank you for your questions.

I respect your questions. You sound to me like one of our elders. We have people back in our part of the country who challenge us on some of our decisions of course, and that's good.

I agree in part on some of the points you make.

First I want to make a clarification, though. Aboriginal governments are not private governments. They are public in nature, but they are aboriginal governments, different from the public government system that was designed here in Ottawa and sent up north. That is the differentiation I make.

Again I speak to the principle of integrated resource management. We agree with it. We don't have a problem with that principle. We have a problem with the timing of the implementation and the forcing upon us of someone else's idea of how to apply that principle in our country. We would like to have a say about how we apply the principle of integrated resource management in our own country. That's what we are saying. Okay. So I want to keep that clear. We're not against the principle. We'd like to have some say as to how it is applied.

We in fact have decision-making capacity on our land that has to be protected. We may find some protection under section 35, but the only way to find out if we have protection under section 35 is to take somebody to court. We don't want to be taking people to court all the time. We don't have the money to take people to court all the time to protect our section 35 rights. If this country would protect our section 35 rights from the outset, it would save us a lot of money.

You're talking about supporting the north with this $1 billion that you sent to the Government of the Northwest Territories. That's the reason why we're in self-government negotiations right now: because our people are not getting the programs and services; they're not getting their due. If you look at statistics—and in fact you probably have access to these statistics—the ratio of civil servants to people is nowhere higher than in the Northwest Territories. We've got all kinds of people coming in from southern Canada to look after us who are living on that $1 billion that you send up there.

The people at the community level who it's intended to serve are poor. They are trappers with no economy left. The fur industry is gone. What do they turn to? There is nothing there. There's no government job for them. Our biggest industry in the Northwest Territories is government, and guess who occupy the majority of the government jobs?

I could go on all day about these things. That's why we're into land claims and self-government negotiations: because we want to correct that situation.

Mr. John Finlay: Correct. That's why we're training people to do those jobs who are aboriginal.

You see, you're quite wrong. Our government was not designed in Ottawa. Our government has evolved.

Mr. George Kurszewski: Not the Northwest Territories.

Mr. John Finlay: Our form of government has evolved over two thousand years and we are part of that tradition.

Mr. Gary Bohnet: Mr. Finlay, there is one thing I would just like to raise and bring to your attention. Since the Liberal government took power, the present government and the former government under the Liberals basically have done more to further the Métis cause in the Northwest Territories than any government in the history of this country. So I compliment the party for that.

• 1105

The government of the day also recognizes, when it comes to environmental issues, that the Métis Nation of the Northwest Territories is a leader among aboriginal people when it comes to environmental issues. We share the concern. We share many of the same concerns.

Maybe we're not communicating properly, but what we're trying to say is let's not create this new regime in other regions until these regions have completed their own negotiations and such. We totally agree a form of integrated land management regime has to be set up. We totally agree with that, and we're not opposed to that. What we're saying is that by implementing this bill without the specific amendments, or else not implementing it in regions that haven't settled, what it does is it sets a tone for them. We go to the table with officials from the Government of Canada who have their job and they are held to an act that says they cannot look at other management regimes that may be even better and simpler than the one proposed.

This particular bill is very complex and confusing. I'm suggesting we may be able to find a better management regime that the people in the regions that haven't settled can deliver.

So we're saying the same things. We agree on a lot of the stuff we're saying. But we're asking you not to impose this on us at that particular time in those regions that have not completed claims.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier, then Ms. Hardy.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Earlier on, I understood that Mr. Bohnet was blaming the Department of Indian Affairs for not having contributed enough.

I am certainly not here to defend Liberal government policies, but I have been told that in 1997, in August to be more precise, the Department of Indian Affairs announced a temporary resource management program designed to help Aboriginal communities who live in our regions, in the Northwest Territories. If I'm not mistaken, it concerned your region in particular. According to the information I received, this program included four points: environmental assessment, licenses, resource-use planning and consultations.

First of all, I would like to know if you are aware of this and if you know the program. Can this program help you a little bit, moderately, or a lot? I would like to hear your opinion because 1.5 million dollars is a lot of money. At any rate, if I were to announce that 1.5 million dollars had been made available to my region, I think people would be happy.

So I would like to hear your opinion on that. It is perhaps not enough for your region, in your context, but perhaps it is enough. I will let you comment on that.

[English]

Mr. Gary Bohnet: The program I think you're referring to is a new program called IRMA. The program is not up and running right now. The money is not flowing at present. That particular type of program is going to be an excellent program, very, very useful to all the aboriginal people of the western territories. Its design is good. We've been involved in the design of the program. It probably could utilize more resources. But at present that particular program is just not up and running.

About the lack of resources for consultation in the past, you indicate that I complimented the department and the minister on the one hand and on the other hand I said we're not getting the resources. The reality of it is we receive funding from a lot of different sources for different things. When it comes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, we had very limited resources for proper consultation in that particular area. In other areas we do receive funding from the government.

But the new program is going to be a very good one.

Mr. George Kurszewski: If I could address that also, we think that new program is an excellent interim measure until you have an integrated program up and running. In fact, that is all we need right now, for the next few years, until we finish our negotiations and we're able to be part of this in full also. If that could happen, if that program could remain for the next two or three years, it would be an excellent way to stay involved. Then we'll have our own agreements that speak to how we deal with our own lands in relation to the integrated regime.

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Wilfert, suivi de Madam Hardy.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry I was late. I did read your brief. First of all, I will start by thanking you for your written submission.

But the longer I sit at this table, the more confused I become.

Mr. Gary Bohnet: Us too.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Just when I thought I understood it all, everything seems to be unravelling again in the last two days. My understanding was that this process was about empowerment. My understanding was that we're trying to develop an integrated resource management approach to the Mackenzie Valley. My understanding is that certainly as far as being stewards of the environment is concerned, we have much to learn from you. I don't think there's any question that we all want to make sure. We only get one kick at the can and we want to do it right. I don't think we're trying to develop five separate authorities or anything like that.

I always get distressed when I hear about process, because I'm very big on process. I think it's important. I get dismayed when I hear you say that only in the last few weeks did this come to light. I know this has been an ongoing process, and I think the longer we're at this.... We don't seem to be getting very far; we seem to be on a treadmill.

I accept that you have concerns about how we got to this stage. But if we do not go ahead and you say that in the Sahtu and the Gwich'in areas we establish x, but that in these other areas you're not coming on board at the moment or you're still in land claim negotiations, etc.—I understand all of that. But what happens in terms of that management in those areas? If you don't take an integrated approach, in which we all have a responsibility, what happens to those areas in the interim? That interim could be a long time. You've been talking about 25 years. I hate to think we're going to do this for another 25 years.

Mr. John Finlay: Maybe 50.

Mr. George Kurszewski: We don't want to continue for another 25 years. We're very tired. We already covered that this morning. There are very few people living in the Northwest Territories, compared to the rest of Canada. We have limited human resources and some of us are involved in most of the problem issues. We're very tired of handling all these problems for the last 25 years. We hope to conclude very soon.

As I indicated, the Dogrib AIP is due in the spring of 1998, so that region looks to be clearing up very quickly in terms of these issues.

As Métis and the South Slave, we are into negotiations now. We expect to have a possible AIP by the fall of 1998 and a final agreement within a year or two after that. We're on track. We're trying to settle everything before the term of this government is complete. We want to settle now. We don't want to face another election and a new government. We don't want to get into that kind of thing because that's what will take another 25 years. We want to do it now.

However, we need protection in our negotiations so that not necessarily just the new ideas, but the good experience we've had with the Dene-Métis process, the Gwich'in process, the Sahtu process, and the Dogrib process, can benefit us. We can fine-tune these agreements that set up this kind of regime. We learn as we go along and we get better at doing things as we go along. We feel that in order to take part properly in this kind of integrated regime, which we support—we support the principle—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I understand that.

Mr. George Kurszewski: —we need to allow for that learning and that understanding to show itself in our agreements.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: If the minister were sitting here at this very moment and you wanted to leave Ottawa with one message, what would the message be?

Mr. George Kurszewski: If the minister were to give me one message?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: No, if you wanted to give her one message.

• 1115

Mr. George Kurszewski: That's a good question. With regard to Bill C-6 I would say she should wait for a couple of years more. I don't think that would throw anything out of sync in the north. I think it would provide for the allowance that people are asking for, in their own negotiations, to get into this voluntarily. That's the key.

We will get into this. We will support an integrated regime. But we want to do it voluntarily. We don't want it forced on us.

Give us the opportunity to finish our AIP and we'll get into it voluntarily. We'll be partners.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That would be the message to the minister. What would be the message to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu?

Mr. George Kurszewski: My message to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu would be to give us the same respect we gave to them when they had their negotiations. We didn't interfere. Our negotiations will not impose anything on them. Give us the same respect and we'll be partners also. I mean, we're related.

That's all we'd look for.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Even though they're anxious to move ahead here.

Mr. George Kurszewski: I know they're anxious to move ahead, because their agreement was settled a couple of years back. They want to see it implemented properly, which I understand; however, the only problem is, it impacts negatively on someone else's freedom of negotiations, and that's not right.

So I'd ask them to re-evaluate their situation and give us the same kind of support we gave them. We passed resolution after resolution to show support for their process, to bolster their process, while they were in there first. Give us the same respect. We're in here toward the end in terms of the western territory and Mackenzie Valley, but give us the same respect.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

We'll now go to Ms. Hardy for the last word, and then we'll go on to the video-conference with Inuvik.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy: I want to thank you for coming and to let you know that I understand and share your sense of space and distance when you're in the north, and the actual time it takes to travel to get together to do the work.

As well, I sympathize with you for coming here. I know many northerners share this feeling, that you're dismissed, because there's not a lot of you. I find it offensive, and it does nothing to engender a sense of unity within our country.

My final point is that you would have us wait; amend this; or you want to be excluded. Am I right?

Mr. George Kurszewski: That's right. That's a very good summation.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hardy. I would like to thank Mr. Bohnet and Mr. Kurszewski. I found these witnesses who came here from Western Canada remarkable. You clearly explained the situation of your people, the Métis. You are frank and polite and I know that you spoke from the heart. I hope that in 1998, the committee will have the opportunity to experience the isolation of your beautiful region and your land. Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Gary Bohnet: We too appreciate the time you've taken to allow us to share some of our thoughts with you. We hope that in the not-too-distant future we will see you in the western Arctic and you can share some of the experience to learn first-hand about the aboriginal people of the western Arctic.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Have a safe trip home and happy holidays. Merry Christmas.

[English]

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The video-conference will start in two minutes.

[English]

We will take a short break.

• 1119

• 1126

The Chairman: Order, please.

Ms. Klein, are you ready? Is everything okay?

Ms. Heidi Klein (Executive Director, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Working Group): Yes, everything is fine here. This is Alestine André.

The Chairman: I will start immediately with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Working Group.

[Translation]

We will now hear directly from Inuvik, in Western Canada, Ms. Heidi Klein, Executive Director, and Ms. Alestine André, Board Member.

[English]

Can you go ahead with your statement? We'll allow ten minutes.

Ms. Alestine André: Good morning. We are here to provide general support for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This act means that the responsibility for making decisions on land and water resources will come to rest with northerners.

The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Working Group is a committee of notional nominees to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board—EIRB—as well as federal and territorial government representatives and a representative each from the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated. We are located in Yellowknife.

The working group was created in May 1996 to guide the establishment of the EIRB office. The activities undertaken to date by the working group have included staffing, development of office and environmental assessment in review procedures, forward orientation, work planning, and budgeting. Once the EIRB is formally established, the working group will recommend to the board that it adopt the work already initiated or completed by the working group.

I want to talk to you a bit about the work we have been doing this past year. One activity was developing guidelines. The working group has consulted with and is aware of concerns expressed by industry, aboriginal and environmental organizations, and the public at large. To that end, the working group has adopted a process for developing guidelines that should address many of the expressed concerns.

The working group has adopted the principle of best practice. It has made itself aware of the procedures used to do screenings, comprehensive studies, and public reviews under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, in addition to other examples of good EA practice.

For example: flexibility. The working group will strive to create guidelines that are flexible enough to accommodate different sizes of development. The working group recognizes that not all development will be of the same magnitude as Canada's first diamond mine—that is, BHP—or the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Most will be smaller in scale. It is not only appropriate but necessary to make the level of effort match the scale of the development under consideration.

Second, accountability. For each development proposal evaluated, the EIRB will issue and make available to the public written reasons for any decision or recommendation.

Third, duplication. In order to streamline the assessment process after a development proposal has been referred to the EIRB, information gathered through previous screenings, and in the future, previous preliminary screenings, will be used to the extent that the information is appropriate.

• 1130

About co-ordination, every effort will be made to ensure co-ordination between affected parties takes place. To assist with co-ordination, proponents will be encouraged to contact different licensing agencies and affected parties before making licensing applications.

I know concerns have been expressed about consultation. The meaning of consultation, in clause 3, and the requirement to consult, under clause 120, are enshrined in the MVRMA. The working group will be establishing a comprehensive consultation process on any guidelines developed.

Early in 1998 the working group will be inviting interest groups and organizations, for example industry, environmental, aboriginal, and government, to name a representative individual to sit on an advisory committee of approximately 10 people for the purpose of providing input on the guidelines being developed. The working group also expects the future board will continue to visit communities in the Mackenzie Valley to explain the new environmental assessment process and seek input into the guidelines. Through the consultation process on the guidelines and in the future during environmental assessment, the working group looks forward to improving on public participation.

Under technical advice, the working group will recommend to the EIRB that they consider establishing a technical advisory committee to assist the board's technical staff with evaluating development proposals. The function of this committee would be similar to the existing regional environmental review committee that supports the CEAA process.

On co-operation, the working group has been working closely with other proposed Mackenzie Valley boards as well as government and first nations responsible for preliminary screening in the development of preliminary screening guidelines. The working group has already met with other northern environmental assessment board managers in order to establish co-operation mechanisms and to share on common issues and concerns. These meetings, it was agreed, would be planned on a regular basis.

The working group has put in place an orientation plan to ensure the preparedness of the notional nominees to take on their EA responsibilities. For example, the working group has been familiarized with environmental assessment, the MVRMA, and public hearings and consultation. They have also received a general introduction to administrative law, including written reasons for decisions.

On intervener funding, the working group also recognizes that intervening funding during public reviews is of extreme interest to northerners. Intervener funding will be included in the separate budget the EIRB must submit before holding a public hearing.

On proposed changes, in the course of preparing procedures the working group has identified several areas where the MVRMA would benefit from changes. These changes would facilitate implementation.

On amending clause 127, the current version of Bill C-6 recognizes that certain developments would have been subjected to environmental assessment under previous assessment regimes; that is, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order. For the sake of expediency, it was recognized that these previous assessments can contribute vital information that could affect the scope of the current assessment and that the EIRB should take this into account.

• 1135

While it is extremely useful to recognize reports made under previous assessment regimes, shortly developments will have been only subjected to the process described in part V of the MVRMA. Bill C-6 does not make it an explicit requirement for the EIRB to have due regard to any assessment reports completed under part V of the act.

Likewise, there is currently no proposed requirement for preliminary screeners to utilize any previous reports under any regime.

While it may be possible for the EIRB to consider writing guidelines that direct preliminary screeners to have due regard to previously conducted preliminary screening and environmental assessment, this could be questioned as being beyond the authority of the EIRB. That is, it has been identified as an explicit requirement for only the EIRB to have due regard for non-MVRMA environmental assessments.

To expand this requirement to preliminary screeners through guidelines and to include environmental assessments completed under the MVRMA could be ultra vires.

Therefore the working group recommends that section 127 be amended to capture any previously prepared environmental assessment reports and that there be an explicit requirement for preliminary screeners to make use of previous assessments as well.

Amend subsection 159(2). The current wording of subsection 159(2) means that any development undergoing a screening or a comprehensive study under the CEAA where a report has not been prepared would revert to the process described in part V of the MVRMA. The working group feels that this could overwhelm the new EIRB and would be inequitable for industry and/or other resource developers whose development is under review.

Therefore the working group recommends that any development undergoing a CEAA screening or comprehensive study that is in progress should continue in that process and not revert to the EIRB process.

Amend section 112. The working group is concerned with maintaining quorum. In the absence of quorum, the EIRB will be unable to make any decisions. It feels that appointments to the EIRB should be undertaken in a manner similar to the other Mackenzie Valley-wide board, like the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, subsection 99(4). That is, the minister of DIAND should have the opportunity to appoint following consultation with first nations, not merely on the nomination by first nations or territorial government.

In the process of developing its environmental assessment and impact review guidelines, the working group has come to realize that absent from the transition clauses, sections 158 and 159, is a reference to developments already in existence for many years that may or may not have undergone a comprehensive environmental assessment.

These developments will be subject to part V of the MVRMA when seeking a licence renewal or proposing changes to the existing operation and likely be referred for assessment, or even review, because of the age of the development and the lack of current mitigative measures. The working group feels that it would be unfair and impractical to have these developments cease operation while they undergo an environmental assessment.

Likewise, the working group feels that in the case of a licence renewal where no change to the operation is proposed, the scope of the preliminary screening and environmental assessment should be similar to what is outlined in the CEAA, subsection 74(4). If this addition is accepted, then in order to be effective section 152 of the MVRMA should also be amended. Section 152 should recognize existing operations and not subject them to part V unless there is a proposed change to the development.

• 1140

Before closing, the working group would like to express support for the swift establishment of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. From a purely practical or process perspective, the working group is of the opinion that the EIRB cannot operate effectively without a valley-wide land and water board. A fundamental attribute to the MVRMA process is the integration or co-ordination of the regulatory regime. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, a key component of the regime, will make the process complete and effective.

In closing, the working group is sensitive to the concerns raised by the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines and individual mining interests. The recommendations presented here should alleviate many of the concerns and lead to more effective and efficient environmental assessment.

The working group is also sensitive to concerns of South Mackenzie first nations and is supportive of their aboriginal and treaty rights.

That is the end of our statement. Thank you for the opportunity to appear in front of you. We will be willing to entertain any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. André.

[Translation]

We will now move on to the question period. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I want to thank you for your presentation; following along was very helpful.

A question arises from your mention in the opening of “who we are”, in that you have representatives of the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated. Since you're creating guidelines that will be used by other groups that have not yet completed their land settlements or agreements, did the others not wish to take part in this process or were they overlooked for whatever reason? Can you tell me what's happened there?

Ms. Heidi Klein (Board Member, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Working Group): I'm not 100% familiar with how the working group was constructed. I believe the people who were directly involved with negotiating the legislation were selected to be on the working group to provide advice to the future board.

In terms of making sure the other bodies are consulted, that's the purpose of setting up an interim advisory committee as we develop the guidelines. That was one of the points mentioned in our presentation, and we'll be inviting people from the Dene Nation to sit on this committee and provide input.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: The Dene Nation are still only one other group. You have the Deh Cho and a number of other regions and groups that are affected. Will they also be invited to participate?

Ms. Heidi Klein: A letter will be sent to the organizations to ask them to appoint someone who could sit on an advisory committee to this board as we develop guidelines. Whether or not they choose to participate we have no control over.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Membership in the working group is limited and what you're talking about is an advisory panel to the working group. Is this correct?

Ms. Heidi Klein: That's correct.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Has the financing been put in place for the setting up of the advisory group? How much input are they going to be able to have and for what length of time is it proposed they will involve themselves?

Ms. Heidi Klein: That hasn't been discussed by the working group yet.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: My goodness, I think they're going to be very unhappy.

I have another question. It comes down to technical advice. You are considering establishing a technical advisory committee. I wonder who you have in mind. Have you contacted any of the federal departments, the surveyor general, or any of those for advice? Who did you have in mind for that?

• 1145

Ms. Heidi Klein: We would begin by looking at the current regional environmental review committee and the expert advisers who were on that. We'd examine their appropriateness to this board, the future board, and expand from there.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay, but environmental review works from a basis of information. How are you going to prepare the information for review? Do you not have to go back upstream a bit on that?

Ms. Heidi Klein: I don't quite understand your question.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Are you going to be dealing with geographic information systems? You're dealing with land registry systems, and a variety of technical matters need to be addressed there. Are you not concerned with those as well as the actual environmental impacts?

Ms. Heidi Klein: Are you asking if we are going to use those technologies as part of the environmental assessment?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm certain you will, but you're developing technical guidelines. Is that a part of it?

Ms. Heidi Klein: We're developing guidelines for undertaking the environmental assessment, and we'll be using expert advisers from departments, from communities, from consulting firms, to provide advice to the board on environmental assessment reports that have been completed by the proponents. I'm assuming that included in that expert advice there will be geotechnical information from the departments, and GIS systems will be used in the evaluations. We'll be using whatever technologies and means are available to us.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Ms. Klein and Ms. André, for your presentation. I am going to call on your services as environmental experts.

We know that the Mackenzie Valley, as defined in the Act, is made up of five regions: the Gwich'in region, the Sahtu region, the North Slave region, the South Slave region and the Deh Cho region.

We are currently grappling with the problem in three regions, North Slave, South Slave and Deh Cho, where the Aboriginals say that they do not want this type of regime implemented because they have not yet signed their land claim agreements.

I understand that if the bill were to be amended in that way, it would create a dual environmental regime in the Mackenzie Valley. I know that at present, there are certain environmental acts that apply to the entire valley, as I described earlier. There is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or the Northwest Territories Water Act. There is a host of legislative measures that are currently in force.

As a result, if the Act were amended so that the new Bill C-6 applied only to the Sahtu and Gwich'in, and the other pieces of legislation I just mentioned applied to the other three regions, could this dual regime have a negative impact on the Mackenzie Valley?

[English]

Ms. Heidi Klein: The impact of splitting the bill, from an environmental point of view, would be that it would be harder for the board to fail to respond to downstream effects, effects from, say, industries south of the Sahtu that might have an impact on the Sahtu or the Gwich'in areas.

There would have to be created co-operation regimes between this board and the existing environmental assessment regime. So it would be some sort of joint or co-operation assessment mechanism with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review projects that would have effects downstream. That would probably be the key environmental effect, the splitting of the effects and having to get into a transboundary agreement situation in order to make the MVEIRB effective.

• 1150

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: So it is something that would be feasible. I understand that it would be necessary to find some way to join the two regimes.

I also understand now what is happening south of the Sahtu, as in the first few minutes of the committee meeting we learned that water flows from the south to the north. So I understand that the Gwich'in and the Sahtu are on the edge and that everything that happens upstream has an impact on their region.

However, despite everything, you say that it would not be all that disastrous, as long as the regime that applies to the Sahtu and Gwich'in regions can be linked to the system that would continue to exist in North Slave, South Slave and Deh Cho.

So based on what you're saying, it is feasible.

[English]

Ms. Heidi Klein: I think you got my meaning correct. It wouldn't be disastrous. It would be difficult, because I know the current harmonization and co-operation agreements can take years to negotiate, but it wouldn't be totally impossible.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to follow up for a moment, please, on my understanding of Mr. Bachand's question, because I had the same point here. On page 3 of your brief, under “Technical Advice”, it says the working group will recommend to the EIRB that they consider establishing a technical advisory committee to assist the board's technical staff with evaluation of development proposals. It also says the function of this committee would be similar to the existing regional environmental review committee, which supports the CEAA process.

Is there going to be a duplication under Bill C-6 of these two regimes, these two processes? If there's an existing review committee that has responsibility for technical work or staff, can they not be utilized? What's your feeling on that, or what's the actual situation?

Ms. Heidi Klein: The adoption of the regional environmental review committee would be a continuation of the current process. CEAA will, for all intents and purposes, disappear from the Mackenzie Valley region. We'll be proposing to the board, when it's established, that they adopt an advisory committee similar to the one that already exists under the CEAA process. So it's not a duplication; it's more of a continuation.

I have a comment, actually, on the previous question as well.

If it's contemplated that the EIRB would only apply in the Gwich'in and the Sahtu and that some sort of mechanism could be put in place to create co-operation for south of the Sahtu with respect to an environmental assessment, my response was mostly in terms of panels and their mechanisms for co-operation and joint panels. Some additional thought would have to be given as to how that would work at the environmental assessment level—something less than a public review stage or a panel stage.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions.

Under “Consultation”, I think Mr. Bachand or Mr. Konrad asked this question too, but I just want to be clear. It says the working group will be inviting interest groups and organizations—industry, environmental, aboriginal, and government—to name a representative to this working group. It says approximately 10, but I assume that any group in the area, such as the South Slave Métis, will be invited and may be involved. Is that correct?

Ms. Heidi Klein: It was anticipated that this advisory group would be an interim advisory group through which the draft guidelines would be passed, and that in the future the board would go out to all the groups for a much more complete consultation. We wanted to have an immediate intermediate group through which to vet the draft guidelines. That's what that 10-person group would be.

• 1155

From there, because the consultation is defined in part III and in clause 120, there would be a much broader consultation into the communities and with all the groups, after this intermediate group has had a chance to make comment.

Mr. John Finlay: But those people would be invited to send someone if they so wished.

Ms. Heidi Klein: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

I must applaud what you say about intervener funding on page 4. You say it “will be included in the separate budget that the EIRB must submit before holding a public hearing.” It's one of those things dear to my heart.

My other comment is about what you say on page 7:

These developments will be subject to part V of the MVRMA when seeking a licence renewal or proposing changes to the existing operation and likely be referred for assessment or even review because of the age of the development and the lack of current mitigative measures. The WG feels that it would be unfair and impractical to have these developments cease operation while they undergo an environmental assessment.

I would agree with you that I think it's essential that some of them may need to be looked at from the point of view that the mitigative measures, whatever they are, that are in place are not adequate if what I was told in Yellowknife two years ago is true—and I believe it to be true. One of the mines there is.... It may be improved now, but it is actively polluting the lake and having an adverse effect on the fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of other questions.

Is this working group going to be the environmental impact review board? I see that training is taking place for the members of the working group, and they are what you are calling “notional nominees”. That, to me, is a brand-new term.

Ms. Heidi Klein: No, the working group will cease. The working group was established as an interim body to prepare for the environmental impact review board. The notional nominees are the nominees who will be appointed to the board. There are four right now—two from Gwich'in, two from Sahtu—but the remaining seven, according to the legislation, still have to be nominated and appointed. The other advisers—those from the Gwich'in Tribal Council, Sahtu Secretariat, and the federal government and Government of the Northwest Territories—will cease to be on the board.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So I understand, then, that the notional nominees are basically selected by the Gwich'in, Sahtu, Dene, and Métis groups. They have received ministerial approval, I take it?

Ms. Heidi Klein: That's correct.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I see, and it's not in accordance with this act, but in accordance with some other approval process.

Ms. Heidi Klein: They have received their letters from the minister indicating that they have been nominated and that the intention is to appoint them once the act is passed and there is official proclamation that the boards exist.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: All right.

Another question, to go back to intervener funding here. Where will the funds come from for that, and how will they be administered?

Ms. Heidi Klein: When the EIRB decides to go to a public review, it has to submit a separate budget to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Included in that budget will be a request for funds for intervener funding.

As for how it will be administered, we're just in the process of discussing our panel review procedures right now. It will likely take on a structure similar to what the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency uses. An independent group of people will go through the applications for intervener funding to select who gets intervener funding and to what amount.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much. I'm not sure I have anything more to ask at this time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. We will now go to Mr. Fournier, followed by Mr. Finlay, who will have the last question.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I would also like to thank you for coming and I thank you for your presentation. I would like you to explain to the committee why it is essential to quickly set up a water and land board in the Mackenzie Valley and why your working group is of this opinion when several Aboriginal groups in your region have not yet settled their land claims. I would like to know why you are in such a hurry to have your board.

• 1200

[English]

Ms. Heidi Klein: That sounds like a political question. We're not a political group. It's not up to our group to....

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Of course. Politics aside, it is a fact. In your area, there are several Aboriginal nations that are claiming the right to the land, their territorial rights and it seems to me that this is a serious concern for them. I do not know if it is just a problem between you and the federal government of Canada, but I would like you to explain to the committee, as I asked you earlier, why you are of the opinion that a board must be set up quickly to work in co-operation with all these groups, when their main concern is settling their land claims. It seems to me that whether it is political or not, it is an issue which has to be resolved. Are you of the opinion that this issue must be resolved or do you think the claims are not legitimate?

[English]

Ms. Heidi Klein: To this point the working group has tried to avoid getting involved in the political discussions and what the other land claims groups might be striving for. They have established themselves to put in place good environmental assessment practice. They would like to see environmental regimes come to the north and have decision-making done by the northerners, but they also recognize that they don't control the clock. The clock for when this regime is being put in place is with the politicians and with the other organizations, and the working group is there to respond to the clocks and urgencies of other organizations. Until the board is officially established, the function of the working group has been and will be to put in place good environmental assessment procedures appropriate to the conditions in the Mackenzie Valley.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I would like to add something, Mr. Chairman.

You say that you are fully aware that there are nations in your region that have land claims, but that you do not want to get involved because you are saying that it is political. Would I be going out on a limb in saying that if Quebeckers claim their sovereignty, you would not get involved either? Can we say that if these are political problems, your nations in the Far North, in the Mackenzie Valley, will not get involved either?

[English]

Ms. Alestine André: I think what we're trying to say is that we're not a political entity. We're an environmental assessment review group. That's what we do and that's what we were set up to do.

I think whatever happens outside in the political arena, we would just as soon leave it there. Our main concern is the environmental review, the guidelines that Heidi has been talking about, and trying to get our business in order when this is enacted.

• 1205

Any kind of politics that happens outside is something that happens outside our arena. Because we deal with the environment and the environmental review and the guidelines, we want to be as independent as possible. Is that clear?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Yes, it is clear, and I thank you for your answer. I'm happy to hear you talking about being independent, and I'm convinced that my colleague opposite, Mr. John Finlay, will also be happy with your response. For my part, I'm satisfied with it. I'm eager to hear the comments of my friend John, who is an active and very nice man. Thank you for your answer.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. I know you, you are a great Quebecker. We'll now go on to the last speaker. Mr. Finlay, you have five minutes because Mr. Konrad and Mr. Fournier have formal meetings after lunch in the House of Commons. You have the floor.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my colleague Mr. Fournier's remarks, but I hope I can ask two questions with not quite so much political intent.

The first one involves your recommendation about nominees to the Environmental Impact Review Board, in which your recommendation seems to be at odds with the present, because it says that the Minister of DIAND should have the opportunity to appoint, following consultation with first nations, not merely on the nomination. And you're concerned with quorum. Can you just simply explain to me what happens? Why is it necessary to make this change?

Ms. Heidi Klein: The working group is cognizant of the fact that there are organizations south of the Sahtu who will likely not nominate members to the EIRB. In the legislation, appointments can only be made based on nomination, and there's a 50:50 ratio.

The legislation also speaks to the need for a quorum of five people in order to take a decision, so they have concerns that there may be times when they will be unable to make a decision in the absence of quorum. If there's another way of dealing with the question of quorum, like something similar to the Inuvialuit agreement, let's say, where if there are delays in making nominations the board is able to function as a complete board while they're waiting for nominations and appointments to be made—there's a statement to that effect in their agreement—that could also be considered.

Their primary concern is with being able to take decisions, because quorum is set at five. Now they do have five nominees, but they're uncertain about the future.

Mr. John Finlay: It seems to me that's a point we'd like to be clear on before passage of this bill.

My last question is in connection with something I mentioned before, because I find the wording just a little unclear, and that is where you suggest we need some improvement to the transition clauses, clauses 158 and 159, where there's a reference to developments already in existence for many years that may or may not have undergone a comprehensive environmental assessment.

You suggest that these developments “will be subject to Part V of the MVRMA when seeking a licence renewal or proposing changes to the existing operation”, and that they will “likely be referred for assessment or even review because of the age of the development and the lack of current mitigative measures.”

• 1210

I want to be clear. It seems to me that's saying the development must seek a licence renewal, and if that's within, let's say, the next five years, that might be all right. But perhaps it runs longer than that. I don't know the present licence. Is it 99 years, perhaps? Or it's if they propose changes. Suppose the review board or the environmental assessment process feels there's a problem with this development and mitigative measures could be taken. Can that development then be subject to a part V screening or assessment, or does it have to be triggered simply by renewing the licence or proposing a change? In other words, if somebody is getting away with murder environmentally, they are going to keep right on doing it unless they want to change it.

Ms. Heidi Klein: There are two aspects you have to look at. The primary triggers in the proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are with the application for a licence, permit, or authorization. That's on the statutes list regulation, which is similar to the CEAA law list, with modifications to be appropriate to the Mackenzie Valley and adding the territorial laws and regulations.

So about triggering the process, someone has to come in for a licence renewal. At that time they may or may not seek a modification to their existing process.

Issues dealing with mitigation measures can also be dealt with outside the environmental assessment process, through the inspectors departments have. If someone is not complying with their licensing provisions, then that can be done outside the assessment process.

About the suggested change to the MVRMA, all the board is seeking is to be consistent with what the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has right now. In the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act there is a recognition that there were projects that would not have gone through either the EARP process or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process. In other words, these were projects that were in place before June 22, 1984. All the working group is seeking is that for consistency's sake those projects should be treated in a manner that is similar to the treatment they get under the Canadian environmental assessment process. Under the Canadian environmental assessment process, those projects could be subject to the process if they come in with proposed modifications or amendments to their licences, but if it's a simple renewal they wouldn't be subject to the process. At least that's how I recall it worked.

Mr. John Finlay: I just wonder whether the working group is happy with that and that's the best we can do and therefore we'll leave it like that.

Ms. Heidi Klein: The working group wouldn't have put it forward as a suggestion if they were uncomfortable with it. Is that what you're asking?

Mr. John Finlay: Yes.

Ms. Heidi Klein: They understand the concerns out there from the different groups. Within a few years there has been a shift from EARP to CEAA and now to the MVRMA, and they just want to ensure there is some consistency between the MVRMA and CEAA in the treatment of projects.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

I would like to thank Ms. Klein and Ms. André for their comments. In conclusion, I would like to clarify two things. This is our last day of hearings. On Tuesday, December 9, at 11:00 a.m., we will start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6. If you have any amendments to Bill C-6, I would like you to send them to our clerk, Ms. Fisher, by fax or by messenger, if possible.

• 1215

I would like to thank all of the witnesses who have been present at our hearings and who have been excellent. I would like to thank the staff from the Department of Indian Affairs who have been very attentive to all comments made. I would also like to thank our clerk, who has done an excellent job and I would like to tell her that I know that it's been a lot of work. I would like to thank our researchers because they have done quick and precise work right from the beginning. Thank you as well to our interpreters, our support team and our messengers. Thank you very much everyone and see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.