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]

Tuesday, November 18, 1997

• 1110

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): We are ready to begin. I thank all those here present.

Today we proceed with consideration of Bill C—6, An Act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

In accordance with Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 of the bill is postponed.

We move on to clause 2.

Mr. Patry, would you like to speak before I introduce our witness?

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

[English]

Before we begin hearing our first witnesses on Bill C-6, I would like to indicate to the committee's members that the House of Commons intends to introduce two amendments to sections 152 and 159 concerning transitional measures in the bill. I have brought with me draft copies of these amendments for members of the committee, in both official languages.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. I'll wait until the documents have been distributed before introducing the senior officials.

Today we have from the Department of Indian and Northern Development, Mr. Will Dunlop, Director, Resource Policy Directorate, Northern Affairs Program; Mr. Peter Haley, Acting Chief, Resource Strategies; Mr. Jacques Denault, Policy Specialist; and Ms. Suzanne Grenier, Legal Counsel.

Mr. Dunlop, do you have a presentation to make? Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy Directorate, Northern Affairs Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee.

This bill is more than two years late. Canada had an obligation to create this legislation within two years of the adoption of the Gwich'in, Dene-Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement late in 1992. The Sahtu Land Claim Agreement, ratified by Parliament in 1994, contains the same obligation.

What took so long?

[English]

The previous Mackenzie Valley bill, formerly Bill C-80, died on the order paper when the election was called. That bill and Bill C-6 before you today are the culmination of a long and challenging process of innovation and growth. The department was granted permission to use drafts of the bill itself as a tool of consultation and involvement.

Since 1993 there have been 35 drafts of this bill used in workshops, public meetings, mail-outs, discussion groups, and drafting sessions. I and my staff have met with industry representatives, environmental groups, and first nations to discuss the bill. We have met with people in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Whitehorse, Fort Good Hope, Fort McPherson, Norman Wells, Fort Rae, Fort Providence, Yellowknife, Fort Simpson and Fort Smith.

The actual development of the bill involved a four-party working group made up of our department, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, the Sahtu secretariat, and the Government of the Northwest Territories. At times, we included staff of the Dogrib First Nation and other federal and territorial departments.

• 1115

I should also say we profited from the innovative and detailed involvement of the legislative drafters from the Department of Justice who offered us their imaginative and energetic support.

[Translation]

The culmination of that work is Bill C-6 before you today. The proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act will create an integrated co-management regime.

Lofty words, but what do they mean? The bill treats the whole Mackenzie Valley as one ecological unit.

[English]

The bill proposes to create three institutions of public government that will regulate land and water uses, prepare regional land use plans, and conduct the environmental assessment of development projects. Each of these institutions or boards will have a role in the management of lands and water.

The land use planning boards will prepare land use plans for each of the Gwich'in and Sahtu regions. The land and water board will implement those plans and issue land use permits and water licences. They will do preliminary screenings. The Environmental Impact Review Board will conduct environmental assessments and the larger-scale public reviews.

[Translation]

Boards will be made up variously of nominees from Gwich'in, the Sahtu, other First Nations groups and the territorial and federal governments. The board membership will be 50 percent from the First Nations and 50 percent from the two governments.

All appointments will be made by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Each board will receive its budget from the federal Minister. Each board will submit its annual report to the Minister. Each board is subject to audits by the Auditor General.

[English]

Land use plans require the final approval of the minister. The Environmental Impact Review Board makes its recommendations to a federal minister. The larger type A water licences require the minister's approval, and the land and water board receives general policy direction from the minister. The existing Northwest Territories Waters Act is preserved, and the present territorial land use regulations are the model for the Mackenzie Valley land use regulations. The inspectors stay the same.

In turn, this resource management regime signals a diminution in the role of this department. While the role of the present NWT Water Board will be absorbed by the new land and water board, our department's role in land use permitting will cease, and our role in co-ordinating and conducting environmental assessments will be taken over by the new environmental board.

[Translation]

The bill does not threaten Aboriginal and treaty rights and does not threaten the Indian Act.

[English]

It avoids duplication. It provides certainty with a familiar regime. It provides for devolution to the north. The bill provides northerners with a true voice in the management of their natural resources. Finally, this bill demonstrates Canada's commitment to implementing land claims.

[Translation]

We thank the committee for the opportunity to assist in any way in its deliberations.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Dunlop.

We will move on to the question period. Mr. Konrad, you have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you. That's five minutes for our party, is it?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So we'll do as we did before and split our questions.

• 1120

We have some questions supplied for us here for the department, and I would like to ask some.

Several aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley have not yet settled their land claims and consider the establishment of regulatory bodies to be premature. I'd like you to comment on those concerns. Who was consulted in adopting Bill C-6? Given that concern still exists, why did the government move ahead with establishing these institutions with jurisdiction over the entire Mackenzie Valley?

Mr. Will Dunlop: There are a number of groups in the Mackenzie Valley that are presently negotiating land claims and/or self-government agreements. There are a number of groups that are trying to get to a table to begin negotiations. In all cases, the stance or the position of the department in those negotiations is that we would use as a basis the 1990 Dene-Métis agreement in principle, which largely you have before you today. The chapter on land and water regulation is based on co-management, and it's based on the land and water board, the Environmental Impact Review Board, and the Land Use Planning Commission that you see here.

Who did we consult? We consulted from the top of the valley to the bottom. A number of brochures explaining the bill were mailed out. We attended a number of meetings in communities in the valley. As recently as last week we had meetings with a number of regional chiefs and with the Chamber of Mines in Yellowknife.

Why are we proceeding now? We're three years late as of next month. It's taken us five years to get here. We've hardly rushed along. We've taken a long time to develop the bill.

We're signalling that we're looking for one regime in the Mackenzie Valley to protect the environment, one regime to do environmental assessments, and one regime to do the licensing and land use permitting of land and water.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So what we see before us will be the format for all future negotiations, regardless of concerns raised by other groups.

Mr. Will Dunlop: No, I wouldn't call it a format. We've set up the framework for public government boards to manage land and water and a public government board to do the environmental assessments in the valley.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Going back to the consultation process, you mentioned some mail-outs and several meetings in several areas. Were there mail-outs to rank and file individuals in the community or were they mainly to band leaders? What would be the make-up of that?

Mr. Will Dunlop: They went to band offices, tribal councils, regional tribal councils. There were some sent to hunters' and trappers' associations in the early days—in 1993 and 1994—to individuals, to the territorial government for dispersal throughout its departments, to a couple of hamlet councils who had indicated an interest, to the Chamber of Mines, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Arctic Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. There are probably about a thousand copies of previous drafts floating around in the west and in the north somewhere.

Mr. Grant McNally: So there was no specific consultation or mail-out to rank and file people in the area. It was mainly sent to the special interest groups, or groups who had an interest at stake with this bill, who were consulted.

Mr. Will Dunlop: That's correct. We didn't do mail-outs to individuals.

Mr. Grant McNally: In total, how many people would you say came before the committee roughly? Was it 100, 200?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Oh, probably 300.

Mr. Grant McNally: Would you have any idea of the population of the area that's going to be included, roughly?

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'm going to guess at 32,000.

Mr. Grant McNally: So about 300 people out of 32,000 would have been consulted.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Face to face.

Mr. Grant McNally: Face to face.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'm not talking about the CBC radio coverage or the open houses at which pamphlets were distributed, or that kind of thing.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What exactly is the role of the the land use planning boards—the ones creating the plan? Are they ongoing boards that will always be there? Who's going to finance them?

Mr. Will Dunlop: The land use planning board in the Gwich'in and Sahtu settlement regions are to produce a land use plan for the region, which is a fairly large area. In the case of the Sahtu it's probably nearly the size of New Brunswick. There will be five members. They will take some years to produce their first draft of a plan, which will cover the whole settlement region.

• 1125

Once that plan is adopted they're going to have to be available to people who seek application or who apply to have exceptions to the plan, amendments to the plan. No less than every five years there has to be a comprehensive review of the plan.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: How is that funded?

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's funded by our department and the implementation plan of the land claims.

The Chairman: This is your last question.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Is the funding for once initially or is it ongoing? Is it paid out of the land claims settlement or is it paid by the department continuously, year in and year out?

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's funded continuously. At the back of the implementation plans for each land claim we show a schedule of payments per year. For example, the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board in this year would get $126,828, and the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board in this year would get $566,054.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Messrs. Dunlop and Konrad. Mr. Bachand, you have five minutes.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Dunlop, if I understand correctly, Bill C-6, which we have before us, has come out of agreements on land claims in the region of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu.

Where there appears to be a problem, and I raised this problem during my speech in the House on second reading, is that there are other regions, including those of the Deh Cho and Dogrib and of Treaty No. 8, which have not yet signed land claims.

I wonder whether the government's policy is to extend something that concerns the management of land as well as water resources to the entire Mackenzie Valley region. I find it bizarre that, before a self-government agreement has been signed, a new way of managing lands and water is being imposed on large regions where the Dene and the Métis are also very present.

I have two questions. First, it seems to me business people must want the act to be implemented throughout the valley to ensure that everything goes as they have planned as regards mines, forests and so on. They must want to have the same pattern for everyone. However, I don't believe that's what the Aboriginal peoples want.

First of all, don't you think you're going somewhat against the land claims and self-government policy by imposing this kind of system on people who have not yet signed an agreement? Wouldn't it have been more logical to implement the act in the two regions that signed land claims and self-government agreements and which should normally expect what they already have in their agreement to be set out in a statute? Why doesn't the bill apply solely to the region of the Gwich'in and that of the Sahtu? Why is it being extended to everyone? Is it to respond to the claims of the business community at the expense of Aboriginal peoples?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: Both the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims require the creation of an environmental impact review board for the whole Mackenzie Valley. There was very little division or rancour or difference of opinion from anyone in the valley about the fact that environmental impact assessment was for the whole valley and that the valley was not going to be chopped into individual little pieces with different techniques or different methods for doing environmental assessment. The one central feature of the valley, the Mackenzie River and its valley, was going to be considered as one ecological unit by one board, so we have an obligation to create that board with a span of jurisdiction throughout the valley.

• 1130

You mentioned government policy or departmental policy. The department's policy is to involve local residents in the north in decision-making, in real participation, not just consultation. They have a real role in decision-making. It's also the policy of the department in its northern political and economic strategy to promote devolution and the transfers of powers from the federal to the territorial governments.

There are a number of models for managing land and water. The model being promoted by the department and by government is a public government model based on co-management. There are a number of other models around, some of which are perhaps more difficult to envision. There's one called co-jurisdiction, one called co-existence, and one called co-governance. Co-management is the model Canada promotes for the effective regulation of land and water.

When I spoke in Yellowknife with groups last week, it was clear that there was a very uneven understanding about what was in the bill. I think I alleviated some concerns when I said that the bill does not affect the control first nations have over their land, whether they're pursuing a treaty land entitlement or whether they're pursuing self-government. Once they, as landowners, as property owners, make their decision for their control about who uses their land and under what conditions, the land and water board regulates. The land and water board protects the environment, either through the land use permitting conditions or the water licence conditions. I think that explanation was very helpful.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bachand, do you have another brief supplementary question?

Mr. Claude Bachand: No, I'll come back later instead.

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop, in response to a question by Mr. Konrad earlier on, you spoke of the costs of implementing the agreement. Could we have a copy of the list of those costs? I don't think I have that and I don't think the other committee members have it either.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: We'll get you a copy of it. We'll get you a copy of both.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Today?

[English]

Today?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Dunlop, this morning on behalf of the government we proposed two amendments concerning clauses 152 and 159. The first one is in regard to the existing rights and the other one is in regard to the environmental evaluation. Can you tell the members of this committee why we made these changes and in what way they will affect the Mackenzie Valley act, please?

Mr. Will Dunlop: The change proposed to the wording of clause 152 has its root in meetings in Yellowknife in the month of September, when staff from our department met with the Chamber of Mines, a number of mining companies in and around the Yellowknife area, and representatives of the Gwitch'in Tribal Council. There they heard some very serious concerns and some very strong opinions about the effect of the transition measures, specifically this one.

After that meeting, representatives of the Government of Northwest Territories, ourselves, and the Gwitch'in looked at the wording and agreed that a higher level of protection for existing users now would be a grandfathering provision. Right now, clause 152 is worded as something on the order of a six-month holiday. Instead, we propose grandfathering, in other words, that the holders or anyone who has a lease, a sale agreement, a right of way or an easement, need not apply for a permit unless they change the use of their land.

With respect to subclause 159(2), the case was made to us that there was an interpretation available in reading those words that somehow we had left a loophole, that if there were a development proposal now going through an environmental assessment before this bill was passed and that assessment had not gone through completely to the report stage and the writing of the decision or the writing of the recommendations, somehow that development proposal would start through the new system the day after this law was passed.

• 1135

The wording change we propose slams that loophole shut without any opposition. Everybody intended that to be the case. I hope that makes it clear.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Why do the Mackenzie Valley land and water board and the Environmental Impact Review Board need to apply immediately to the whole Mackenzie Valley?

This follows the question of Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The Environmental Impact Review Board is an obligation flowing directly from the two land claims. We expect a busy year ahead. We expect there to be applications for land use. We expect there to be applications for water. We need a certain date when that system will take over.

On the land and water, we're trying not to run two, three or four kinds of land use permitting systems or water licensing systems. We're relying on the present-day NWT Water Act. It was only amended four years ago. It's fresh, new, and vital.

We fear to have, and resist the notion of having, DIAND, our department, running one land use permitting system in the south Mackenzie with another system running in the north Mackenzie or a third system running after new land claims.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're now going to the second round of questions. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: There's a comfort clause in the preamble that states the Government of Canada intends to review, in consultation with first nations of the Mackenzie Valley, pertinent provisions of the act in relation to negotiations for self-government with those first nations. I'd like you to explain to us what impact that clause might have in actual practice.

Mr. Will Dunlop: In the three other regions of the south Mackenzie a number of negotiations are under way. A number of negotiations haven't started. We already know that some first nations have very little interest in the land use planning board, for example, the way it's shown in part II of the bill, and they may not pursue a land use planning activity at all.

Others have an interest in land use planning but only for their land. They don't have much interest in doing a land use plan for a whole region. Other first nations are at the table negotiating self-government. The land and water provisions they're negotiating may be in a self-government agreement, not a land claim agreement. We intend to weave it into this framework. That's how that preamble would operate.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have a question about the board membership or the make-up of the board. In addition to appointing all board members, the federal minister would have the discretion to appoint a chairperson—a little preamble there.

Have criteria been established for the requirements of a person wanting to be part of the board?

Mr. Will Dunlop: There are no criteria. It will operate just the way the other boards operate. Members must demonstrate competency and confidence.

Mr. Grant McNally: Would these board members be sought out by people in the department or in the area? Is there any flow to how someone might get on the board?

Mr. Will Dunlop: We publish notices in local newspapers in the valley highlighting what the position and responsibilities will be. We invite people to submit names. We also know people and we produce our own list. We also invite any interested parties to write directly to the minister to seek nomination.

Mr. Grant McNally: So a pool of people's names is put forward and then the minister makes the final determination as to who will sit on the board.

Mr. Will Dunlop: That's correct.

• 1140

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): If I understood your presentation correctly, a number of Aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley were not consulted and a number of groups have not even settled their land claims. Are they going to be consulted? Do we have the time to consult them? Why have they not been consulted? It took a lot of time to get to this point, and today we have not consulted an important Aboriginal group. That troubles me. I don't understand why that wasn't done.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: Perhaps you misunderstood the answer. We consulted throughout the Mackenzie Valley. We consulted in each region of the Mackenzie Valley. We did not force ourselves on anyone who didn't want to talk to us and we didn't consult anyone who didn't want to be consulted.

We consulted some groups and have since had elections and have a new group of leaders, and some of those leaders have not been consulted. We've had public meetings where people attended but did not attend as leaders of their first nation. They attended the sessions to hear what we had to say, to look at our overheads, and to see our presentation. So the consultation is a mix, but we did not set out to not consult anyone.

Are we rushing the bill? I don't think five years is a rush at all, and we've set the framework in this bill to actually encourage negotiations to proceed.

I also want to hark back to the meeting last week, where one of my statements, I hope, was well received. This is not the end of a process; it's a start; it's a beginning.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I must have misunderstood, and I want an explanation to be sure I properly understood. You're telling me that you consulted them and that your sample for a population of 32,000 inhabitants was 200 to 300 persons. Correct me if I misunderstood you. Do you believe that was a sufficient sample to get a good idea of the community's opinion?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's a larger sample size than we've had before. We've had other consultations where we had public meetings—open houses—and three people showed up. So when we have 60, that's a good turnout.

When we talk to elected leaders, we are quite certain they are speaking for their people. When we speak to elected representatives, we are quite certain they are giving us the views of their first nation or their tribal council. I think we got our messages pretty clear in the different meetings we had in the valley.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. Mrs. Lindell.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I know some other questioners also approached this a bit, but I'm still not quite clear as to the other groups that haven't settled their land claims. Are they now facing an item in their land claims negotiations, a piece of legislation, that is non-negotiable and has to be worked into their proposed land claims or treaties? Is that now a non-negotiable piece as far as their negotiations are concerned? Once this act is passed, if they're doing new land claims agreements, will that piece already be written into their agreement and be a non-negotiable item?

Thank you.

Mr. Will Dunlop: No, I don't think it's non-negotiable. I guess I wouldn't frame it that way.

The negotiations that are proceeding right now in the valley, which are going on as we speak, are on the basis of co-management. They're on the basis of co-management in land use planning, land and water regulation, and environmental impact assessment.

• 1145

We fully expect there to be variation of interest, variation of emphasis, variation of overtures, certainly in land use planning and most definitely on membership of boards. We know, for example, there are groups who don't want to be the only people sitting on an environmental impact review panel in a region. They'd like the ability for there to be extra seats so first nations who aren't part of their land claim could actually sit on an environmental review. We know that lies ahead and we're having discussions about that presently.

But the point to be made is that co-management is what's been selected, not co-jurisdiction.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are you sharing your time with Mr. Finlay?

[English]

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

The Chairman: You have three minutes.

Mr. John Finlay: There is in this agreement the non-derogation subclause, 5(1). It provides, in the event of inconsistency or conflict, that the Indian Act, the Gwich'in or Sahtu land claim agreement, or the legislation giving effect to either agreement would prevail over the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Being concerned about the environment and about looking at the whole value, which you outlined in your introduction, Mr. Dunlop—and I think that's very important—what's the rationale for that provision? I think I understand that, but what is the interaction, if any, between this bill when enacted and the Indian Act? In what cases might the provisions of this bill conflict with the provisions of the Indian Act?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Clause 5 was inserted very much for the comfort of not only the first nations who have not yet completed negotiations but also the Gwich'in and Sahtu. It's probably debatable whether it has to be there, because the settlement legislation that adopted the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims will prevail. That settlement legislation has afforded constitutional protection for the aboriginal rights created in those land claims.

But interestingly enough, in the last month there was misinformation in the valley that this bill was going to actually amend the Indian Act, so it was very helpful last week for me to be able to point out this clause. Not only are we not amending the Indian Act, but if there's a conflict, it prevails.

Where could there be a conflict? Today there are only two Indian reserves in the Northwest Territories, one at Salt River and one at Hay River. The best we could come up with for a potential for conflict is in land use permitting.

A first nation, under the Indian Act, has the ability to pass bylaws on its reserve, and if they pass bylaws in the form of or in the nature of environmental protection, the land and water board withdraws. It won't exercise that jurisdiction on an Indian reserve.

Today the water licensing for Indian reserves is done by the Northwest Territories Water Board under the existing legislation, and the land and water board would take that over.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay. We'll move on to the third round now. Mr. Konrad, please.

[English]

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

I have a question about membership on the boards. The bill talks about the requirement of the Sahtu Dene and the Gwich'in to nominate persons acceptable to the minister, and it also gives the minister the power to override those nominations, I believe. So the minister is under no requirement to accept the choice of the first nations. I wonder if any criteria have been proposed that would be reasons for disallowing the democratic choice of the first nation involved.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The only discussions we've had with first nations, specifically with Gwich'in and Sahtu representatives, was a criminal record: don't bother nominating a person who has a criminal record. Other than that it's wide open.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Are you going to put that in the act?

Mr. Will Dunlop: No.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Then how do you limit the discretionary power of the minister?

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'm sorry?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: How then is that discretionary power limited?

• 1150

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's not limited. They asked us not to put something like that in legislation. They found it offensive. They fully understood it, but they didn't want to see that in writing.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Is there any mechanism to appeal that?

Mr. Will Dunlop: To appeal a nomination?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Well, their refusal of a nomination.

Mr. Will Dunlop: No, there's no appeal.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have just a couple of questions about the funding of boards. I think it was mentioned a bit earlier. Was it $75 million each over the next 15 years? Is that right?

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'm sorry, where are you getting that figure?

Mr. Grant McNally: From one of my papers here. Maybe I have the wrong paper. Maybe you could just tell me then what the cost would be per year for each one of the boards to administer the work they need to do and basically their budget per year. It's probably here somewhere in our mountain of paper.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'll get you these copies, Mr. Chairman, believe me.

For example, in the Sahtu implementation plan, I believe we're in year three, so the land use planning board gets a budget this year of $581,054, and the land and water board in the Sahtu region gets $603,330.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. These are yearly numbers then. So they'll get that budget every year?

Mr. Will Dunlop: It changes from year to year. It goes down in some years and up in some, but it's mostly down. The start-up costs are pretty well over, so the working groups are under way getting ready to become the boards. They have a facility, and they're getting their materials and goods.

Mr. Grant McNally: Just one last question. Could we have a dollar total for what it would cost to implement all these boards over say a ten-year period from year one to year ten? What will the total cost be?

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's about $4 million.

Mr. Grant McNally: It's $4 million. That's for the boards together or each board?

Mr. Will Dunlop: The boards together.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McNally. Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have a question on the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Patry. Perhaps you could answer, Mr. Dunlop. You must be as familiar with the amendment as he is. Was it the Department that suggested it to you? In any case, we could talk about that later.

This surprises me because this should not be entitled "Droits existants" in French, but rather "Protection des privilèges acquis".

If I understood this correctly, it was commercial and business interests that requested greater certainty regarding the bill, and I find it odd that an exception rule has already been introduced into the bill. Among other things, it talks about land use rights arising from a lease, right of way or other right granted on the lands, which can mean virtually anything. For example, is there an emphyteutic lease that would enable someone to use a piece of land or a mine for 100 or 50 years? Are you telling us that, with this clause, they are going to exempt themselves from the bill before us?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes and no.

Mr. Bernard Patry: He has the beginning. You have the end.

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The present system of leasing land in the Northwest Territories...the leases contain the provisions. It is the vehicle that contains the environmental protection conditions today in return for getting the rights to the land. Tomorrow, when the legislation is passed, that lease still stands as a contract between government and the lessee and those environmental conditions still stand. Most of the lessees, certainly the large leases where the mines are...they don't just have their lease, they also have their water licence, and that water licence continues throughout the life of the mine. That doesn't change.

I hope that's where you were looking.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, just one supplementary question.

The Chairman: You have three minutes left, Mr. Bachand.

• 1155

Mr. Claude Bachand: From what I understand, the bill will apply to every kind of new development or new use of lands and water. Everything that was there under a contract, whether it be for 50 years or 100 years, will apply until the contract expires. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, that's correct.

I think I also neglected to answer part of your first question. If an existing lease changes its use—for instance, a hunting or fishing lodge decides on its lease it wants to run a mine—it comes under the new system. It will have to make application to do that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. Mrs. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Actually, Mr. Finlay has asked my question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I'm very interested in the environmental features of this bill, Mr. Dunlop. Bill C-6 proposes a three-step regime for environmental review consisting of preliminary screening that may or may not be followed by an environmental assessment and ultimately an environmental impact review. This process differs somewhat from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA.

I want to know why it was felt necessary, if in fact it's terribly different—and I'm not sure it is very different—to establish a different scheme for environmental review in the Mackenzie Valley as opposed to the system set out under the CEAA.

I have a further question, but that's the first one on this.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The three-tier regime of screening, assessment, and review flows directly from chapter 24 of the Gwich'in claim and chapter 25 of the Sahtu claim. They're both reflective of the existing federal environmental assessment process at the time, which was the environmental assessment review guidelines order, the EARP process.

The feature that you'd notice is not the same as CEAA is the comprehensive study. That's blended in with the environmental assessment, the second level of our system. It's probably the most familiar of systems. The only panels that have been held in the north doing environmental assessments and impact reviews, the big public panels, have been using the EARP process. There wasn't yet a CEAA process when these were negotiated.

So the three-tier regime is quite familiar to everyone north of 60. That's what's been used until now.

Mr. John Finlay: The CEAA process explicitly requires public participation in the environmental assessment, which I don't think is in this bill to the same extent, and the establishment of a public registry and public hearings and so on.

The other point I'd like to know about is that CEAA provides participant funding at a post-initial screening phase for an assessment so that the public can meaningfully participate. Is there any provision in Bill C-6 for participant funding? If not, why was this not deemed necessary in the Mackenzie Valley?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Third parties, people who want to appear as an intervener or as a witness to remark on applications, have the opportunity at two locations. One is at the environmental assessment when the Environmental Impact Review Board wants to conduct a hearing or get observations or get recommendations and commentary.

At the environmental impact review stage, when it goes to a full public panel, the board has to submit a budget to the minister to run that panel, whether it lasts six months, a year or two years. It's fully expected that one of the line items in that budget will be public participation, or intervener funding. We reserve the right to put some sort of approval on the amount, but the notion is not resisted whatsoever.

Mr. John Finlay: So there's a provision for it but it's not spelled out. Is that what you're telling us?

Mr. Will Dunlop: That's correct. It's not in the legislation. It's the ability of the board to provide that budget, to actually go and start a panel, conduct a public impact review.

Mr. John Finlay: Will there be some regulations or guidelines for such a panel?

Mr. Will Dunlop: The terms of reference are set between the board and the minister. The minister is the one who gets the panel up and running by sending money. The board has to produce a budget for that panel to do its review. The board is the one that gets to determine the scope of that review.

Mr. John Finlay: So if they put it in that they want participatory funding, then you think it will be followed up on.

Mr. Will Dunlop: I know it will be. If they want to have public hearings in Yellowknife, in Fort Norman, in Fort Good Hope, that's fine—as long as they don't ask for public hearings in Sweden.

• 1200

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry, followed by Messrs. Konrad, Fournier and Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be sure I understand well the amendment of subclause 159(2). If I understand it, it means if there is any proposal for development already under way before this bill comes through.... If they're under way and a project is going on, they're not going to go under the new regulation to see if it's going to go through. Is that correct?

Mr. Will Dunlop: That's correct, right through to the decision point.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

The Chairman: Merci, Monsieur Patry.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm afraid I probably know the answer to my question, but I'm going to ask it anyway because it just seems so much in need of being aired. Membership on regional boards is half by region and half appointed by the minister. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. Will Dunlop: The minister appoints all the members.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: But half are named by the—

Mr. Will Dunlop: Half are the nominations of first nations and the other half are nominations of government.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: For the aboriginal appointment, must the person live in the area and be a member of that first nation?

Mr. Will Dunlop: We don't have a residency requirement. We fully expect they will be a member or a beneficiary—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's a mere assumption; that's not a requirement.

Mr. Will Dunlop: That's correct.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: But they must be aboriginal.

Mr. Will Dunlop: No. They just have to be nominated by the first nation.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: When the minister appoints the half dozen who are appointed by the government, they can be from any of the other regions as well.

Mr. Will Dunlop: That's correct.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It just seems to me that having all of these boards with members from every area could have been combined into one board with regional representation.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Let's look at the land claim.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I know what the land claim says, but I'm wondering what might have been done originally, just to air my concern here. I realize you can always claim something that happened upstream is a result of what's happening downstream, which is probably true. When you throw a stick in a river, it's going downstream. Nonetheless, your view on that is what I'm interested in right now.

Mr. Will Dunlop: If we look at the size of the Mackenzie Valley, it's probably the same size as Saskatchewan.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Which has two boards and one set of regulations.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Well, I wonder if they have quite the same ecology.

I think whether or not there are two boards or three boards is beside the point. The ability of the Environmental Impact Review Board or the land and water board to break down into smaller groups to do the actual licensing, to do the actual permitting, or to conduct an impact review just makes sense. Certainly for the Gwich'in, the last ones down river, they'll inherit everything in the river sooner or later. It will all flow through their region.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's exactly my point. They don't get any say until it gets to their region.

Mr. Will Dunlop: No, not at all. They will have a seat on the Mackenzie Valley land and water board and they'll certainly have a seat on the Environmental Impact Review Board. They may not have the same concerns or the immediacy of concerns as the people of the south Mackenzie, who are near Alberta and are worried about effluent in the Slave River or the Athabasca system, but eventually the Gwich'in have the same concern. It might not have the immediacy, but they have the same concern.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: But these areas are not necessarily geographically coherent. They're based on where people live, not on what might happen geographically. Consequently, a board may have a geographic region to worry about that may well have had a different boundary from that. It may have been bounded by something different from what would be a political line, really.

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's not so much a political line, Mr. Konrad, as it is the traditional territories of the Sahtu and the traditional territories of the Gwich'in. What you're seeing reflected on the map, for example, is the Peel River watershed, which is very important to the Gwich'in. They have quite a number of families trapping in that area. With the Sahtu you have a group of people who rely heavily on Great Bear Lake for their fishing. Another group of people in the Sahtu rely heavily on the Mackenzie Mountains for their moose hunt.

• 1205

What you're seeing is their traditional territory embraced in a region, in this case the Sahtu region. That was the basis of their land claim, and it's the basis for their regional structure of the land and water board and the land use planning board.

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I'll start with a very brief question. In your case, why haven't the negotiations with the federal government been successful?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: I think they are succeeding. I hope we will have an agreement in principle with the Dogrib Tribal Council by April, an agreement in principle dealing with land claims and self-government. Negotiations are just under way with one of the Métis groups in the south Slave. Hopefully that one will take on some energy and some vigour. I guess you can't see the progress, but it's going on.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Are you satisfied with the provisional Northwest Territories resource management program which was established by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in August 1997? If not, which provisions would you like to have included in this bill to meet your requirements in view of your present situation?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't understand that question. An interim something in August this year?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I'll repeat. The provisional Northwest Territories resources management program, which was adopted in August 1997, is an interim program for Indian affairs to correct the weaknesses of this bill. I'm asking you whether you are satisfied with this bill. Otherwise, what provisions would you like included in this bill to meet your requirements in view of your present situation?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: Now I understand.

I've only ever heard that program called IRM; interim resource management. That's funding available to individual first nations and tribal councils to be consulted on, to be involved in, development proposals, development projects; and to gather information, to garner concerns and remarks about development. This bill will only add to the success of that program by actually having first nation members, nominees, sit on the boards that are going to make those decisions. I think it's seamless, and I don't think a change in the bill is necessary to improve it.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Many people tell us that Bill C-6 is very complex and that it could even impede development. What do you think about those statements?

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: I think the statements are shrill and inaccurate. In Yellowknife last week I made a presentation to the Chamber of Mines and they asked that we produce a flow chart describing the process. They were worried the process was not integrated and they were worried the process was complicated. It was the same request as Dr. Patry asked us to produce: some sort of a flow chart describing how these processes work.

It's in the information kit we handed to you this morning. We used it in the presentation last week for the chamber and for the mining companies who attended. I took them through it using an overhead projector. I think they were very pleased with how clear and how obvious it is that one application enters the process at one location all the way through to a decision.

• 1210

At the top of your chart you'll see where the application enters the process. Across it you'll see the relationship the three boards have with each other. I think it relieves a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of concern about complexity. I think the chart answers for itself that it's an integrated system.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Mr. Wilfert, you have three minutes.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up on a comment to that he made to Mrs. Karetak-Lindell. Maybe I misunderstood it.

The bill is to establish co-management for an integrated system of land and water. You said there were those who were interested in really their own particular lands, those who had a broader vision in terms of the region, and those who were not interested in participating—not at this time, in any event. In terms of the execution, then, how will that work if you have those who are not prepared to participate at this time?

Secondly, I thought you said in response that this would not necessarily be a starting point for future negotiations. Why wouldn't it be?

Mr. Will Dunlop: I gave you the last half of my answer first. I was suggesting that it was not an end to negotiations, because the dialogue continues.

We hope to be able to continue to promote the soundness of this approach to managing natural resources. We continue to point out and to suggest the very real power, the very real influence, that's being suggested here. It's real decision-making, not consultation. It's not being asked to give your concerns. You sit on the board and you make the decisions. You decide what's in the licence and you decide what's in the permit. You decide what the recommendations are for protecting the environment—mitigation measures, for example.

We think this is a very attractive alternative to today's system in which our department issues the permits and our department co-ordinates environmental assessment. Once the boards are up and running they are going to receive the applications and they are going to have to deal with them.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Given that, if they're so attractive, then why are there those who are resisting?

Mr. Will Dunlop: I guess you'll have to ask them. I think there are groups that promote a different approach and there are groups—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: But in the end, for those who don't sign on now, you're not going to try to create something, a variation down the road. Why would you not say to them that they have their opportunity now and if they don't sign on, that's life.

In the future, this is what we're going to be doing. This is the process we're adopting.

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's a process of suasion, not coercion or confrontation. We're not trying—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: There's no coercion in saying that these are the rules that were established. You had an opportunity, but you didn't join at that point. I don't see that as coercion down the road.

Mr. Will Dunlop: No, but we're trying to promote co-management. We're not trying to criticize the remarks or the opening positions of other people. We're not trying to make it look like a decision has been reached and an end has been achieved. We're trying to put up front the framework for co-management in the valley.

I guess it's a difference of accent.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Clearly, and I don't know that I agree with your accent.

Mr. Will Dunlop: It's an Irish accent from the valley.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, I'm not sure exactly what you are achieving.

Mr. Will Dunlop: We most certainly are meeting the obligations of two land claims.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I understand that part. It's the other part that I'm—

Mr. Will Dunlop: I think we most certainly are putting out a familiar system, a known regime. Our department is stepping back from the picture and is playing a much less pre-eminent role by putting northerners into the picture. They take on the role. We are very much promoting co-management as the answer.

• 1215

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I don't disagree with that, but again, for those who are not participating, I'm not comfortable about what the starting point will be down the road.

Mr. Will Dunlop: The starting point has been the land and water regulation chapter of the two existing land claims, both of which find their root in the 1988 agreement in principle of the Dene-Métis land claim negotiations in the Northwest Territories.

When that agreement failed and was not passed in 1990 it was not because of the land and water chapter; it was because of difficulties and uncertainties and dissatisfaction with the whole notion of extinguishment of treaty rights.

On that basis, Canada agreed to proceed with the regional negotiations of land claims, but on the basis of co-management, land and water regulation, environmental assessment and land use planning. That basis is still there today. That's not something new; it's a decade old.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

I would like to mention to you that Mr. Peter Haley has handed me documents concerning the implementation plan, including figures. Since the document is in English only, I'm going to wait for the French translation before handing it over to committee members on Thursday afternoon. Do you agree that it should be distributed in both official languages? Perfect. Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions? We have a group of witnesses that have come from far away and we would like to hear them.

I'm now going to adjourn for 10 minutes because we have a motion concerning the visit by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We'll resume at 12:30 p.m.

• 1217

• 1227

The Chairman: We are resuming the meeting. We decided yesterday that Mr. Konrad's motion would be put to a vote before we heard witnesses. Mr. Konrad asked that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appear before the committee to discuss his Department's estimates before November 20, 1997. There were previous discussions and Mr. Konrad asked us to proceed with the vote. Is that what you in fact want us to do, Mr. Konrad?

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Now we'll continue with the representatives of the Deh Cho First Nations. We have the former Grand Chief, Gerald Antoine, the Grand Chief Mike Nadli, Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge, of Fort Providence, and Mr. Richard Lafferty, Métis Nation representative. Do you have a presentation to make, Mr. Nadli?

[English]

Grand Chief Mike Nadli (Deh Cho First Nations): Thank you for this opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

My name is Michael Nadli. I'm the Grand Chief for the Deh Cho First Nations.

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

I'd like to take this opportunity to express the desires and aspirations of our people of the Deh Cho. We have a lot of issues we are concerned about, yet today we are focused on Bill C-6. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain some things before our presentation in order to set the context for our presentation and perhaps enable you to understand and feel our plight in the Deh Cho.

• 1230

One thing I bring to your attention is that we have a process we call the “Deh Cho process”. It is our aspiration and our vision that one day we will become an autonomous first nation in the Northwest Territories. We believe that process is something we have worked on for thousands of years. Currently it epitomizes the commitment and the efforts of our past and present leaders. We are confident it will become the commitment of our future leaders.

One thing I would like to make clear is the reality of the context. We are not negotiating with the federal government. The treaty of the past that our ancestors entered into with the crown never ceded, surrendered, or extinguished our treaty and aboriginal rights to the Deh Cho territory. There are certain obligations that have to be carried out by the Department of Indian Affairs. Some issues relate to health, some to education, and some to justice. Those are issues that really affect us up in the Northwest Territories.

One particular point we are very concerned about is the land, so much so that we have taken our own prerogative on the premise of the Paulette case that determined and let it be known to the Canadian public that we have never surrendered, ceded, or extinguished our treaty and aboriginal rights to the land. Consequently, we have taken our prerogative to implement a moratorium in our region. We feel that the land use applications that alienate and develop the lands are not for our benefit but to our loss.

As well, we would like to point out that the agreement in principle that was recently referred to was rejected by the Dene-Métis of the Dene Nation. A specific contentious issue was extinguishment, but the provisions of the co-management principles outlined in the AIP were not acceptable to the Dene.

As I have indicated, the main urgent and immediate task before us is to address Bill C-6. Perhaps the package we've provided to you.... Yesterday we had the opportunity to meet with the minister, Jane Stewart. We made our presentation. We presented her with a letter. That's under tab three. It basically outlines our concerns.

We have passed various other resolutions. We essentially specified our concerns with the proposed legislation. Our people have ascertained and inferred some conclusive actions we have to undertake. It's reflected in the resolutions. We have other resolutions that we feel affect this whole proposed legislation—the boundary and land use resolutions and, more importantly, our understanding of Treaty 11 of 1921.

• 1235

I have indicated that we are not negotiating with the federal government. Back in 1994 we presented to them a proposal called the Deh Cho proposal, which is an indication or an aspiration for us to be self-autonomous in our own region.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed to my presentation on the proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Deh Cho is the territory occupied by Dene and descendants of Dene. Our territory is outlined on the attached map. Our ancestors entered into peace and friendship treaties with the British crown in 1899, 1900, 1921, and 1922. These were not land or inner treaties. The crown wanted its subjects to live within our territory in peace and friendship. These basic and fundamental treaty rights of the crown subjects have never been violated.

We are appearing before this committee to state our position in relation to the proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In appearing before the committee we are not consenting to the provisions to be applied in our territory, nor can our appearance be seen as consultation with us on this legislation. We merely want the committee to be made aware of some fundamental facts about the relationship between the state of Canada and Deh Cho citizens.

We are fully aware of the legislative history of the proposed legislation. There are outstanding legal obligations the state of Canada has to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. We have no dispute with Canada's obligations. However, we are concerned when the state is trying to do an end run and pass this legislation affecting our territory without having any agreement with our peoples.

Over the years we have attempted to enter into discussions with the state, but each attempt has been rebuffed by the state. Canada was instructed by the Canadian courts in the Paulette case to enter into discussions with us to settle outstanding issues related to access to and use of Deh Cho lands and resources. Nothing happened. There is no agreement with the Deh Cho. But now the Department of Indian Affairs is attempting to use Parliament to impose the legislation on our territory. We must state for your record that we have never given our consent, implied or actual, to the legislation. We are not giving our consent to this process.

The proposed Mackenzie Valley resource management legislation is a violation of the treaties. The state of Canada cannot impose legislation that fundamentally changes our relationship with our lands and resources and our treaties without consent. As Lord Denning stated in R. v. Secretary of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs and the Indian Association of Alberta, indigenous peoples'

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

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

• 1240

In an attempt to give the illusion that the Deh Cho's consent was requested, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs sent a Priority Post envelope to the Deh Cho leadership in late July 1997. There was no consultation.

In the covering letter sent by Gary Nicholl, acting director of Resource Policy and Transfers of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada the stated objective for sending the material was “in an effort to consult further with you on the proposed legislation”. Further, the letter requested if there were any comments they were to be sent directly to them.

There are a number of things that should be noted. First, receipt of a Priority Post envelope without knowing its contents is in no way an acknowledgement of receiving the goods for the purpose of consulting. It does not meet any legal standard for notification unless we could ask whether the Department of Indian Affairs has a lesser standard for notification than is presently accepted in our legal system. We do not accept Priority Post as an acceptable method.

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

Third, the state of Canada is not the owner of the lands and resources in the Deh Cho area and has no legislative right to make laws or enact legislation in the territory where it possesses no jurisdiction.

Fourth, the Deh Cho leadership has never agreed that any other leadership, Gwich'in or Sahtu, has the right to consent on behalf of the Deh Cho.

In effect, this legislation is a coward's way of dealing with the issues related to the lands and territories of the Deh Cho. Canada does not want to discuss the real issues of implementation of the treaties.

In the preamble of the proposed legislation there is reference made to the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements that need to be fulfilled by the state of Canada. The proposed legislation provides for the establishment of boards that would extend beyond those settlement areas. In the same preamble it mentions the Government of Canada's intention to review the legislation with the first nations of the Mackenzie Valley. It appears that the sending of the registered Priority Post letter to the offices of leadership of the first nation is a form of consultation.

There is good reason to dispute the federal government's intentions. Early in this process it must be made clear that no such consultation is appropriate. When you move toward the interpretation sections, there is specific reference to the Deh Cho leadership. First nation means the Gwich'in First Nation, the Sahtu First Nation, or represents the Dene or Metis of the north Slave, south Slave or Deh Cho region of the Mackenzie Valley. Deh Cho have never agreed to such a reference.

In the definition section this legislation is intended to cover the area as defined:

Mackenzie Valley means that part of the Northwest Territories bounded on the south by the 60th parallel of latitude, on the west by the Yukon territory, on the north by the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, as defined in the agreement given effect by the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act, and on the east by the Nunavut Settlement Area, as defined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, but does not include Wood Buffalo National Park.

In reviewing the map of the NWT, the intended area would include Deh Cho. This is unacceptable to us. Contrary to the provisions of the preamble, there is intention to limit the application of the proposed legislation to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu area as set out in the preamble. In the definition section there is clear evidence that the federal government intends to make the legislation cover the whole Deh Cho area. In actual fact a shroud covers the whole Mackenzie Valley.

• 1245

Article 3 of the proposed legislation relates to the power or duty to consult. We want to make a comment on the wording. “Consult” is not “consent”. When a body asks for an opinion of the group it is consulted, but if the group does not like the project there is no provision for them to withhold their consent to go ahead. Paragraph 3(b) allows that the body will take into consideration any views presented without the further step that allows the group to withhold its consent. Receiving a package in the mail could be considered consulting by the department and used as evidence at any future action or hearings.

It is critical that Deh Cho maintain our relationship to the land, to fully determine the nature and scope of any activity within their territories, lands, and resources. In the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements there is a clear language that gives over these resources to the federal government. The federal government does not have any such agreement with the Deh Cho.

Consulting is not sufficient to meet the needs of the indigenous peoples and their relationship to their lands.

One of the most important and significant events in recent time was the federal inquiry into the construction of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. In that circumstance, Mr. Justice Thomas Berger was delegated by the federal government to conduct the inquiry and went into the Mackenzie Valley and to the communities, getting indigenous peoples' views.

The process Berger followed was based on the tradition of the British in consultation with indigenous peoples as set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Just like at the time of the treaty making, there were open public meetings in the community with no hidden agendas. There was no time line on the negotiations or any limit on the amount of information that could be discussed.

As a result, witnesses provided a very detailed record of the treaty negotiations and their effect on the land rights. From the testimony that was presented at the Mackenzie Valley hearings, it is very clear that the indigenous peoples did not give up our jurisdiction to the territories, lands, and resources.

One of the greatest problems with this legislation is the assumptions. The proposed legislation is drafted on a premise that the underlying title to the lands rests in the British crown and that by some magic the underlying title passed to the state of Canada. The sovereign of England did not possess any right to assume that the underlying title rested in the crown without the consent of the indigenous peoples who were in legitimate occupation of their lands.

There's even less authority for the crown to subsequently attempt to transfer these lands and resources to the new state of Canada. There could be no transfer without the consent of the indigenous peoples.

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

If the state of Canada was honest about the legislation, they should amend subsection 5(2) to read:

This act applies in the Gwich'in and Sahtu Dene and Métis settlement areas as set out in their settlement agreements with the state of Canada.

This amendment would implement their legal obligations to the Gwich'in and Sahtu and fulfil the preamble of this legislation.

To do otherwise is to violate our rights and invite difficulties.

Perhaps to enhance the context of the discussions, I could say that a week ago there was an opportunity for our region to be represented in Yellowknife and we sent one of our chiefs to that meeting to discuss this very legislation. At the time most regions represented there had an opportunity to ask questions on this bill, and they've indicated a desire to delay this legislation. In fact, what we are doing more specifically is asking for an amendment.

• 1250

With that, I thank you for your attention. On behalf of my respected colleagues, I'd like to say [Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Grand Chief Nadli.

We are now going to move on to the question period, starting with Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Chief Nadli, I don't think there's any percent in asking technical questions about the bill, so maybe I could ask you some philosophical questions.

Since this is a proposed act of the Government of Canada, which you're rejecting on the grounds that it infringes on your autonomy, are the Deh Cho subject to other legislation to which they've agreed over the years? Do you reject all government authority?

Grand Chief Mike Nadli: I guess the very premise of our aspirations is what was agreed to in 1921. This essentially is Treaty No. 11, which we entered into with the state of Canada.

There are two versions of that treaty. There is a written version that is interpreted by the government to be saying that we ceded, surrendered, and extinguished our rights. However, in our perspective and perception of the treaty, based upon our elders' recounting very vividly those days of discussions preceding the signing of the treaty, our people never intended to give up our lands, never intended to cede or surrender or extinguish.

In terms of the federal government, in its domain of federal statutes, provincial statutes and so forth, there are laws that have a general application that we have to respect. We are a respectful people.

Perhaps one of my colleagues would like to further elucidate that question.

The Chairman: Mr. Lamothe.

Mr. René Lamothe (Executive Co-ordinator, Deh Cho First Nations): I would just like to point out that we have found a significant level of ignorance in the general population of Canada with reference to the history of Canada in relationship to aboriginal peoples. It is a very significant level of ignorance.

I was contracted by the Deh Cho and the Dene Nation to research the Dene version of Treaty No. 11 for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Our consultation, both in primary research and in research of documentation, from both the written and oral testimony of aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people, gives significant substance to the position of the Dene leadership and elders with reference to the version of Treaty No. 11 that they adhere to. It is a treaty of friendship and peace.

You have to understand that within our history, up to thirty years ago, more than 60% of our people didn't speak English, did not read and write. It wasn't until 1969 that the leadership of the Deh Cho and the rest of the Mackenzie Valley were able to receive a copy of the government version of Treaty No. 11. After receiving it, they immediately began to move to take action and to protect their version of the treaty. That is why the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories was formed—it later became the Dene Nation.

• 1255

We are in a process of coming to understand your process, of coming to understand your way of legislation and your way of governing. In the process of coming to that understanding, the Indian Act and its policies were applied and the Northwest Territories Act was applied, and our people went along on the understanding that these were laws enacted by Canada to govern their subjects in their lands. They did not necessarily recognize that it had anything to do with them and their way of life. We are becoming more cognizant that what you do in Ottawa may have legal implications for us internationally, so it's a growing educational process for us as well.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: But my question was a little more...in this instance we're talking about the real estate that basically defines the Deh Cho region and the laws that have an effect on the actual land itself and how it's governed.

But there are a lot of laws in Canada and I wonder if you go through every piece of legislation...and I'm not speaking for the government, believe me. I'm a member of the official opposition.

But I must admit that you've presented a philosophical discussion that is new to me. Do you then intend to go through all the legislation and say what applies and what doesn't and what is infringing on your sovereignty, so to speak? I hate to use words like that, but there's—

Mr. René Lamothe: The question is premised on the assumption that we were being philosophical and I—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: In a sense, we are discussing Bill C-6, so in that case it is about it.

Mr. René Lamothe: There is a need for us to grow in understanding each other. That is what I was trying to point out to you.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That is what I am trying to arrive at, and I still don't think I got the answer to my question.

The Chairman: Mr. Lafferty.

Mr. Richard Lafferty (Representative, Métis Nation): Thank you.

I think I could give you a more direct answer. In the Deh Cho we respect the laws of Canada. We are in no way looking for sovereignty, as in the Quebec scenario. We do not want to become an independent country, as some people have suggested. We do respect the laws of Canada as they exist. That's not to say we're not going to try to change them as they apply to us—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's democracy.

Mr. Richard Lafferty: —but they were implemented without our consent and without our knowledge, and they apply to us now.

However, what we are trying to do in the case of Bill C-6 is ensure that no further legislation complicates our right to determine our own government structures. That's our opposition to Bill C-6. Is that clear?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That makes it a lot more clear. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Ms. Hardy.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): I am trying to figure out the process of consultation.

You say here that you were first contacted in July of this year about Bill C-6.

Grand Chief Mike Nadli: Perhaps former Grand Chief Gerald Antoine could elucidate.

Mr. Gerald R. Antoine (Former Grand Chief, Deh Cho First Nations): Could you ask your question again, please?

Ms. Louise Hardy: Were you first contacted or consulted about Bill C-6 in July of this year?

Mr. Gerald Antoine: Yes. That was the first time we were consulted in regard to Bill C-6.

Ms. Louise Hardy: We heard that this was almost a five-year process, so that was the assumption I was functioning on.

Mr. Gerald Antoine: If you are referring just to Bill C-6, yes. However, there have been previous attempts to have legislation about which we were informed. But in regard to Bill C-6 we got a Priority Post in July of this year.

Ms. Louise Hardy: So with the last Parliament it was numbered differently, but it would have been the same bill. Okay.

• 1300

It's not necessarily the process of land management that you disagree with; it's being included in it when you haven't done your negotiations or your land claims or determined your own self-government. Is that right?

Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge (Fort Providence, Deh Cho First Nations): Part of the difficulty we have is that under Treaty No. 11 the Deh Cho have a certain jurisdiction. Under Treaty No. 11 we have a certain relationship with Canada. We are maintaining that this has to be maintained and has to be carried on. This legislation is going to change that quite dramatically in favour of government managers and other people.

Ms. Louise Hardy: You don't want to be involved in co-management?

Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge: Not the way they define management.

Ms. Louise Hardy: You don't want to be included in this bill at all, right?

Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge: Right. We are also suggesting that it can go ahead for the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. We don't have any problem with that. But it has to be amended so that it doesn't include us.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Why do you think you were trying to be included in it when you don't want to be?

Mr. René Lamothe: The obvious intent of the department.... You have to understand, the Government of the Northwest Territories is in fact a branch of Indian Affairs. Legally the Government of the Northwest Territories tried to take Indian Affairs to court twice. It was thrown out both times because in Canada you can't sue yourself. In the act, the Minister of Indian Affairs still has veto power over any legislation passed by the legislature in Yellowknife.

In a sense, then, this is an entrenchment of Indian Affairs' power and authority in our country. That's how I see it, personally.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Okay.

The Chairman: Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for coming. I appreciate hearing your various concerns.

Throughout your presentation you spent a great deal of time talking about consultation and making certain that we understood that consultation did not in your instance mean consent. I want to get back to this whole consultative process.

It's been my understanding that when Bill C-80 was first contemplated there was consultation. I don't mean there was consent, but certainly there was consultation. This is another form of consultation. In a democratic process, we consult. We try to get both sides of the situation and then come to some sort of decision. This is I think where we're at now.

In this consultation process I think there have been, at least from information I've seen, olive branches held out, as it were, to say, well, until such time as you've reached an agreement with respect to your lands, this legislation is providing the opportunity for you to be involved in the management.

Have you taken up that offer? If this bill does pass are you going to send representatives for the management resource program? If not, why?

Further, there have been offers of financial assistance to study.... I know there's been the suggestion that it hasn't been enough, but have you taken up the offer of financial assistance? If so, what have you done with the dollars?

Again, there's a further $1.5 million that can be distributed through this resource management. Do you intend to apply for any of those dollars?

Grand Chief Mike Nadli: Thank you for your questions.

• 1305

There's quite a consciousness, perhaps universally, that the environment is really changing at this time. Maybe Canada, in the eyes of the world, would want to ensure that the last frontier.... A lot of people have a common view of the Northwest Territories that it's the last frontier of North America. Perhaps with the significant findings recently of the diamond mine, they want to open up that whole part of the Northwest Territories for complete industrial development. Perhaps that's their intention.

We are very unique in our way of looking at the land. Perhaps the concepts of environment, conservation, and sustainability are something we value innately, perhaps even inherently. We want to ensure that its form today will be so maybe in the future.

There's a distinction right now between the settlement area, or the people who settled their land claim, and us. The Gwich'in and the Sahtu have taken their own courses to ensure the certainty of the situation of the Northwest Territories toward their aspirations. They've done that. They've essentially ceded, surrendered, and extinguished their aboriginal rights.

But we haven't done that. Their objectives were different from ours. We cannot conceive ourselves participating in legislation like this in terms of how it's being proposed and its content. At the same time, we're very concerned about how their objectives can maybe meet our objectives, because we have completely different objectives now with the situation.

In that sense, that's our apprehension. We perhaps cannot think of the co-management concept and maybe embrace it at this time. In that same light, I applaud Canada for taking that initiative of ensuring there is a conservation tool, but we are very concerned of the intent behind the legislation.

The financial assistance you alluded to, the $1.5 million, essentially outlines the integrated resource management regime that the department is proposing to each first nation. It's an opportunity to essentially take those financial resources that perhaps will have a lifetime of maybe a year or two.... I don't know how you could manage those resources with x amount of dollars at one community level and ensure that you commit a long-term planning process for probably a limited amount of dollars to ensure that the land will be in the state it is today for the future.

Some communities do not perceive conservation and the ecological domain in that light. We have perhaps a completely different perspective of how we see the land. We are essentially part of the land and the land is part of us. One of the terms in our language is “denendeh”, which means the people's land. “Dene” means a person. We identify ourselves as Dene. “Deh” means land. If you put the two together it's coined as “denendeh”. I guess that's the very essence of our relationship with the land.

I hope I answered your question.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Not exactly. One thing you seemed to be upset about was that you didn't have the financial resources to sort of put a proposal together. From the documentation I see, or what I'm told or led to believe, there are financial resources. I'm wondering whether you've taken advantage of those financial resources.

• 1310

The Chairman: Mr. Lafferty.

Mr. Richard Lafferty: In our region, in our territories, we have 14 organizations plus the Deh Cho first nations. That's 15 organizations. We were offered $20,000. The cost of travelling to one community for consultation purposes exceeds that. I believe we didn't accept the dollars.

The meetings referred to in the previous report you heard were in Providence, Simpson, and also Wrigley. They were basically reports; they came to us and they reported what they were doing. That is not consultation.

In the proposal you see that the government side is 50%. That would be 25% of the say for Canada and 25% for the Northwest Territories. But as you've just heard, Canada and the Northwest Territories are the same thing. They got 50%. If you look at the breakdown on the other side, there are at least six other aboriginal groups that have seats there. So our say would be less than 10%. That's not any type of authority over our land.

They say it's important to keep the Mackenzie Valley as one “regime”. The Mackenzie Valley drains northern Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., and the southeast section of the Yukon. It doesn't apply there. It also doesn't apply to the Wood Buffalo National Park, which is part of the region of our traditional land area.

They can't say it is necessary to have one consolidated approach to conserving the land and the environment when there are already numerous other approaches.

We in the Deh Cho get the effluents from all of those other areas directly. The Sahtu and the Gwich'in are downstream from the effluents that come out of all of these other provinces and territories.

So I don't accept their arguments as valid that it's necessary to keep it one approach. It's already so dispersed and so inconsistent that it doesn't count.

Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Chief Antoine.

Mr. Gerald Antoine: I wanted to make a point that one of the objectives the Dene along the Mackenzie Valley had was to try to make a cohesive arrangement with the Government of Canada. Mr. Lamothe gave a brief history about the Indian brotherhood and Dene nation. That's the process we have. In 1990 we didn't accept the whole notion of extinguishment; we didn't accept the package. The federal government went around and said, we'll deal with you individually; we'll make arrangements. Now what they're saying is, okay, we need one thing.

It's not right. Our initial objective was to try to work something out collectively. What has occurred is they haven't been honourable in terms of making this arrangement. They're using legislation to try to...I don't know what their intention is, but it's not right; it's not honourable. We're saying there is something very fundamental...they're suggesting in their legislation to change the treaty relationship as understood by our forefathers. That cannot change, because if it changed our treaty rights would also change. We don't want that to change, because there's something we can get out of the treaty that our elders talked about; it's going to be a win-win situation. With this legislation it's not going to be a win-win situation; it's going to be a lose-lose situation, for both of us.

• 1315

That's why we've been very consistent in our approach to opposing this legislation. In the previous attempt to get legislation—which died on the table because of elections—we said to these people, “We don't like this legislation”. There were other regions in the area that didn't like that piece of legislation, and it was voiced. Again they've attempted to put something in there, but they're including other little things in there too and we're opposing that.

That's the message we wanted to give to the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Antoine.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you for your presentation. It's been very informative. This was a bill that I had an opportunity to speak on in the House for my maiden speech, and I talked about concerns about the process that was happening in the area. We were assured even this morning that broad-based consultation had been made and there was general agreement and everything was fine. Your presentation obviously presents an opinion different from that, and I thank you for voicing that opinion.

We've heard by earlier presenters that this has been going on for three years or five years. There seems to be on the part of the government a sense of urgency that this has to be done right away, whereas to me, and I think to the other members of the committee, we should listen to your presentation to consider that this isn't something that is agreed upon by all the people in the area. It seems to be another form of the Ottawa bureaucracy being implemented in an area without agreement of the people, and we share your concern about that.

I'm wondering about the rank and file representation from your own people, what the word on the street, so to speak, is about this, and also, if this goes forward, how it would impact on your relationship with rank and file people in your area as well as with the Government of Canada.

I threw a few questions in there.

Chief Joachim Bonnetrouge: That sounds like a really loaded question or comment.

Yes, in my community we've been involved, me personally, for at least 20 years, struggling, working with—it used to be land claims and Dene rights and the Indian Act for a number of years. At my community level our elders still have a very strong relationship and connection to the land and the water. The message to us is: whenever you meet and talk with the government, the land is never to be given up, and it is the same way with the water.

If I can think ahead a little bit, if this piece of legislation goes ahead, I think in our Deh Cho area my people in my community will say, “What the hell! What's going on?”

Even though I keep informed on a lot of what happens in Canada, in the world, and in the region, I didn't know very much about this since the last few weeks.

• 1320

Of all people, I should know. I also keep my ear close to the ground, dealing with local people, hunters and trappers and so on.

It would have a disastrous effect on my community.

Grand Chief Mike Nadli: May I add a supplementary statement to that? In our community there are two kinds of languages we speak, English and Slavey. At the outset of my presentation I gave you a couple of sentences just to set the context.

I guess the patriarchs of our communities are our elders. We look to them for advice and at the same time to get their views and opinions. Most times they are unilingual. Yet I don't know if this legislation was ever translated into our language. I have my doubts about that. There are feelings about my language. I'm proud of it and I speak it because I want to and I can communicate much better with my own people.

I just wanted to point that out.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Nadli.

Ms. Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy: My first view of this legislation was that it was going to give more control to first nations people and the people who live on the land and who would know in the local area what they wanted and what they didn't want. But since I've heard your presentation it's very clear that this won't happen even under the best of circumstances.

Let me know if I'm right. Right now your ideal is that you want to be able to make decisions for your land base. If this legislation goes through, your ability to do that will be lost because other governments, territorial, federal, and then the other first nations, will all have input in what happens on your land. Is that right? You don't want to have input in what is going on on their land, only in what is yours.

Mr. René Lamothe: I wonder if I could use a chalkboard. I would like to draw a paradigm that might help the philosopher at the end of the table as well.

Do you have a piece of chalk?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. René Lamothe: Sometimes a little schematic helps to understand a lot of things. This is my own paradigm. I'll write on the wall, if you like; you can keep it for posterity.

[Translation]

An hon. member: Does anyone have any lipstick?

[English]

Mr. René Lamothe: Let me just speak to that paradigm, which I want to draw for you in any case.

Our perspective of a relationship with Canada is based on treaty. Although we don't have the concept of “crown” in our culture and in our history, our authorities, the people who were in control and who governed us, had a meeting of the minds with the crown in right of Great Britain. It's at that level that we wish to continue to function in a relationship with Canada.

With any legislation that comes under the Constitution of Canada, the Indian Act, the NWT Act, the health act—all of those things—we need to understand that we achieve those through the crown, not from underneath, as is the relationship of normal—I'll use the word “normal”, because that's Jean Chrétien's favourite phrase...

[Translation]

the normalization of the Indians in 1969.

[English]

He said that in the 1969 white paper: to normalize relationships with the Indians; to make them into ordinary Canadian citizens.

Our old people today are very clear. When the Paulette case went to the Supreme Court of Canada in the early 1970s, seven of the headmen or chiefs of our communities testified in that case. Those were the seven who were still alive and had signed the treaty in 1921. They were headmen in 1921 when they signed the treaty and when it went to court they were still headmen.

That case was dismissed on a technicality by the Supreme Court of Canada. They couldn't rule on it because in the laws of Canada you can't apply a caveat to unpatented crown lands. Our people didn't have the concept of patent on lands, so we didn't have papers to show the court that we had patents for our lands. So they dismissed the case. It was a resounding moral victory for the Dene. It was based on that legislation that Canada began the process of negotiating with us.

• 1325

We have a treaty. We have an international treaty with the crown. Our people are saying the treaty was made in relationship, and it's a three-way relationship because in our culture when we shake hands it is a physical manifestation to be witnessed by the Creator that this will last forever. That's what a handshake means to us.

In 1990 we got a lot of messages from the old people saying, if you accept this process you are denying our history and you are rejecting the decisions of your ancestors. When you leave this world, where are you going to go?

My father-in-law told my wife, “Tell Gerry and his brother Jim to not give up the land in Yellowknife, until after I am dead at least.” My wife asked him why and he said, “Because I'm going to die before you and when I go to the other side and the ancestors ask me how is the land we left in your care, I don't want to be the one to have to tell them we gave it to the white man.”

It's our responsibility to take care of that land. We have a legal and a spiritual responsibility to the Creator and to our ancestors to maintain that relationship. This is what you are fooling around with here.

Our people are not prepared to give up their whole belief system; we can't. That's why our position has always been that we do have a meeting of the minds, we do have a treaty, but if we fall under your laws of general application in all instances, without honour and recognition to that treaty included in relationship....

We're willing to accept your health care. We send our kids to schools that are financed by your government. We do a lot of things like this, in part because the history was that if we didn't, our ancestors were put in jail for it—our elderly people, old people. It was coercion at that time.

So there's a mixed bag here of a lot of confusion and a lot of ignorance, a lot of fear. But we want to be very clear. This paradigm is very simple.

When we were looking at the development of the Constitution in the Western Arctic, I was doing a lot of the development work in our communities. Our old people were saying things like.... It was confusing at first, until this came to me, and then when I started using that, they said okay, now you understand what we're saying; that's what we've been saying, that's how it is.

This is the Dene concept of reality. It's a circle. Every individual on that circle is gifted by the Creator to allow that circle to exist. We don't have a formalized hierarchic structure, as other societies do.

The crown came to the Dene and said they wanted to make treaty. It was the crown who asked for the treaty, only after 1921, because in 1919 and 1920 oil was discovered at Norman Wells. Ask any historian; that's what motivated the crown to ask the Dene for a treaty. For over 22 years the bishop of the Mackenzie had lobbied the crown to make treaty with the Dene down the Mackenzie Valley and they always refused, until oil was discovered. This is sad information for you, perhaps, but it's a reality.

The Dene said, what's in it for us? Why should we make treaty with you? We're good; we're happy here. The crown said, if you make treaty with us, we'll provide you with these benefits, and the Dene said, why should we take those benefits from you? The crown said, our people are starting to travel into your country; they're travelling through to go to the gold rush in the Yukon, and all of that, and we want them to be able to go through your country peacefully.

• 1330

There was a big debate over why the government would offer money to the Dene at that time. The Dene kept asking if it was for the land, but they were never able to get an answer. Finally, one of them pointed out that after they came off their winter hunt and gathered in the spring, they shared all their food. But these people came down here and didn't have any food, so the Dene had to feed them. So maybe that's all they had to share with the Dene. I think maybe that's what they meant by giving us money. It was their way of sharing.

That was one of the understandings that came out of a lot of discussion, in trying to come to a meeting of the minds.

So you see, the crown has all of its laws of general application. In 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution of Canada, all of a sudden all of this legislation took on a different colour. For example, with section 35 of the Constitution recognizing and affirming treaty and aboriginal rights, how does the Crown continue to implement an Indian Act through which Indian people are wards of the state? There are many contradictions here, and I think you need to know those as well as we do.

We didn't come here to really.... Well, maybe we did. This is the relationship that we see. This new act falls way down here. It kills this and intends to put us under here, as an administrative board as opposed to a nation in an international relationship. That's the difference you have to be aware of, that we're asking you to look at. If we accept to be governed in this way, how can we justify continuing to maintain treaty? These are inherently contradictory. This is an oxymoron.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lamothe, Madame Hardy.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank our guests, because you came very far to be here this morning. Your presentation was very articulate, even if you are in total disagreement with the essence of Bill C-6.

You mentioned a few times the treaty between your nation and the British crown, and Mr. Lafferty gave us an idea of what he means by sovereignty for your nation. It was a good explanation.

In reading your statement this morning, you mentioned that “the state of Canada is not the owners of the land and resources in the Deh Cho area”. If I understand that, it means that any discussions regarding land claims negotiations are not for you. You disagree totally with them. In fact, the only thing you agree with is the discussion about the implementation of the treaties, if I understand you correctly. It's your privilege to do so.

As mentioned also by my colleague Mr. Konrad, there's really no way to discuss the technicality of this bill, because you totally disagree with this bill. The discussion this morning is mainly philosophical.

I thank you for all these comments, because I think it's the first time we have heard these types of comments in front of this committee.

I wish you a good return home on your long trip. Thank you very much for coming before us this morning.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? Mrs. Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm very curious as to what you would like to see in the near future. From what I understand, you are going to negotiate only with the crown—let me get that one straight first—for your land claims or your self-government. That means you're not willing to negotiate with the Government of Canada.

Grand Chief Mike Nadli: I guess the word “negotiations” is not really a term we're comfortable with, because we are not negotiating. We're optimistic that we'll eventually reach that plateau. Maybe there will be a beginning when we will sit down with the federal government to maybe try to detail the concerns we have. Perhaps it's just the first step toward ultimately working out the details with the crown.

• 1335

I would like to think that in the same light the treaty party came into our lands, with a treaty commissioner meeting with our ancestors to detail out this arrangement, a nation-to-nation relationship that will respect and honour and give dignity to our people.

Right now the situation has it that there are other various factions or entities that we have to acknowledge, one being the Government of the Northwest Territories. In that context we view it as an administrative of the federal government. Perhaps there are levels we have to go through, but I believe to get higher you have to take steps. Maybe this is just the first step of our ultimate goal.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lamothe.

Mr. René Lamothe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Just quickly, I would like to point out that we're not an impractical people. We want to maintain that treaty relationship. We have to. We have an obligation to do that. However, in our meeting with the minister yesterday our leadership decided, by form of resolution, to enter into formal talks. Our entry point to the Government of Canada is the Department of Indian Affairs. The minister is interested in appointing an envoy to open those formal talks with us.

As you can see, there are a lot of things we need to come to understand each other about and to resolve, and we want to do that. We're hoping that process will begin soon.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lafferty.

[English]

Mr. Richard Lafferty: In light of all you've heard on our behalf here, where does this go? Where do you take it, if you don't mind my asking? How do we know that this is not just another presentation that will be termed “consultation” and brushed under the carpet?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lafferty, Grand Chief, we listened to you because it was very important. You come from far away. We very much appreciate the claims you are making on behalf of the Dene and Métis people of your vast region.

Your testimony today will be recorded in accordance with the established process of the House of Commons. The members have asked you questions and the government will study this. The entire legislative process will then follow. This is the procedure that we have begun with the groups that come from your region. I'm not saying this is the last time we'll hear you. We will undoubtedly have the opportunity one day to go and meet you on your lands. Perhaps it's a lack of resources and availability that have prevented us from making a trip that we had planned. There have been some difficulties, but the committee did decide to travel to your homeland, and that is what will happen. The discussions will continue with the Government of Canada and the Minister. We very much appreciate your testimony.

I also appreciate your honesty, Mr. Lafferty, and that of all the others. Thank you very much. Is there anything else? How do you say "Goodbye" in your language?

[English]

Grand Chief Mike Nadli: There is no such word for goodbye. For us, it's neghoohda.

[Translation]

The Chairman: See you later?

[English]

Grand Chief Mike Nadli: It means, “See you”. The connotation is that there's no end.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

The committee adjourned until November 20, at 11:00 a.m.