AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 20, 1997

• 1117

[Translation]

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

With us today are representatives of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. We welcome Richard Nerysoo, President of the Tribal Council, Brian Crane, legal counsel, and James Ross, implementations coordinator. Please proceed with your opening statement, Mr. President.

We welcome all of you to Ottawa.

[English]

Mr. Richard Nerysoo (President, Gwich'in Tribal Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for having us attend this session today.

If I might, I would introduce the people who are with me: James Ross, who is a former chief and member of Fort McPherson Gwich'in Council; and Brian Crane, who was involved in the negotiations, has served as a long-time legal counsel for the Gwich'in Tribal Council, and was involved as legal counsel in the Dene-Métis negotiations secretariat prior to that and worked on that particular agreement.

I'll just give a short introduction about Richard Nerysoo to make you aware that prior to my term of being elected as president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council I served in the Legislative Assembly for sixteen years. I served as a member of cabinet, as the premier or the government leader, and as the standing committee chair for legislation and finance. I was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly; Minister of Justice; Minister of Renewable Resources; Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; Minister of Safety; Minister of Public Services; and a whole bunch of other things that I don't necessarily want to make you aware of, because I might spend a lot of time here writing a book.

• 1120

I also served as the vice-president of the Dene Nation and the Indian Brotherhood prior to its name change to Dene Nation in the 1970s. Both James Ross and I had an opportunity to work for that organization.

So I come here with a number of perspectives, both in terms of having served in the great debate over the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, to the discussions about the assembly of the Northwest Territories assuming greater responsibility on behalf of the people of the north, and back in my traditional role as leader of the aboriginal people. You can see that my experience shows that I have had to walk all sides of the rope, and I have tried to present the perspectives that are necessary to represent people generally.

I just wanted to give you that short introduction about Richard Nerysoo—who he was and what experience he has had.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Gwich'in Tribal Council has been involved in the discussions on and the development of this legislation, particularly the act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley. On an ongoing basis, we have taken the position that we will and have supported the legislation.

I think it's important for us, Mr. Chairman, to respond to some of the political opposition that we have heard recently regarding Bill C-6, both in the House of Commons and in the Northwest Territories. I will then make some concluding remarks and invite questions from the committee.

I think it is important, from our perspective, to begin with the obligations that must be implemented under the land claim agreements signed five years ago between the Gwich'in Tribal Council and Canada. The passage of Bill C-6 will fulfil the obligations of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories under comprehensive land claim agreement between Her Majesty The Queen and the Gwich'in. The Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement was affirmed by legislation in December 1992, and is recognized constitutionally as a land claim agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

As I have outlined in my brief, until the 1992 signing of our land claim agreement, the Gwich'in were not involved in decision making regarding land and water use in our region. Our values and opinions regarding the land and waters that we have lived on and travelled on since time immemorial were not respected or sought after by government. In the 1970s we spoke out against the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline project, which we knew would bring harm to our traditional lands and way of life and bring little meaningful economic development to the Gwich'in people.

The Berger inquiry set an important precedent in the orientation of environmental assessment and regulation of land and water use in the Canadian north. After the inquiry, and with the recognition of aboriginal rights in the Constitution, Canada could no longer ignore the fact that aboriginal people in the north had a right to be self-determining. Bill C-6 recognizes the direct involvement of Gwich'in and Sahtu communities in resource management and provides environmental protection for the land and waters of the Mackenzie Valley. Bill C-6 will implement the co-management regime outlined in the Gwich'in final agreement, which requires the establishment of a land and water board, a land use planning board, a regional environmental impact review board, and a regional land and water board. These boards will act as institutions of public government within an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley.

Bill C-6 has been drafted over the past few years in close consultation with the Sahtu Secretariat Inc. and the Gwich'in Tribal Council. This bill is based on a number of important assumptions in environmental science and resource management. Ecosystems approaches must be used to properly regulate land and water use. “Environment” includes biophysical, social, and economic factors. Development can have cumulative impacts on land and water, and development must take future uses into account. Aboriginal people, through their land claim agreements, have the right to participate in the management of land and water use through institutions of public government.

• 1125

Before I address some of the concerns raised by other interested parties, I would like to commend those individuals at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the staff and previous leadership of Gwich'in Tribal Council, and the existing leadership of the Sahtu Secretariat who were involved in drafting the legislation.

The collaborative planning effort aimed at involving northerners in the drafting of this act has been quite successful, and undoubtedly the act has been strengthened as a result. I know there will probably be some suggestions as to how we continue to improve the legislation to respond to the concerns that have been raised by northern people and northern organizations.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council has been able to follow the discussions in the House of Commons—and I certainly have had an opportunity to read the Hansard—particularly now that we are able to monitor the discussions through Internet. Actually we've found it quite interesting and engaging. As a result of having access to these debates, we have been able to understand what the public is saying and what members of the House of Commons are saying regarding Bill C-6.

I would like at this time to direct my remarks primarily toward some of the concerns and comments that have been made in Parliament and more recently in Yellowknife regarding the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

We are aware, from reviewing and participating in regional discussions, that almost all interested groups, be they aboriginal groups, industry, government, or non-government organizations, agree with the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in principle. There are, however, two major areas of concern that we have been able to interpret from our discussions with others.

The first has been raised by aboriginal groups in the southern Mackenzie Valley, in particular the Treaty 8, the South Slave Métis, the Yellowknife Métis Local Number 66, and the Deh Cho First Nation. The concerns of these groups rest primarily with the issue of settlement of land claims and the effect that the proposed Mackenzie Valley land and water board will have on their freedom of choice in the design of a land and water regime in their region. They feel the government is imposing a system of management preordained from the Dene-Métis agreement, on which the Gwich'in and Sahtu claims are still based.

The second concern is coming primarily from some industry spokespersons, and mostly from the NWT Chamber of Mines. They have voiced some anxiety about the process of co-management, namely technical ability of the new boards, the process for board appointments, and the potential conflict of interest and the expediency of the proposed permitting and licensing system.

With respect to the signing of land claims in the southern Mackenzie Valley, I would like to make it clear before the committee today that although my colleagues and I sympathize with the perspective brought forward by the southern Mackenzie Valley groups regarding the legislation, these perspectives do not provide any good reason to stall the passage of Bill C-6.

We feel it is imperative to move ahead with the establishment of these boards so the implementation of our land claim structures may continue on some sort of reasonable schedule. The legislation, as you know, has already been delayed four years, which has negatively affected the implementation schedule of our land claim agreement.

Furthermore, and more important than the expediency issue, Bill C-6 sets up a state-of-the-art framework for land and water management in the north that is second to none in the Canadian north, and for that matter, in the world. It is one of the first instances of a resource management regime based on co-management of land and water within the framework of a comprehensive land claim agreement.

• 1130

We are proud to be part of this framework, and we think other groups, especially those who seek to benefit in the future, should be too. I urge these groups to take a good, hard look at this legislation, and they will see it benefits all people living in the Mackenzie Valley.

Southern Mackenzie Valley aboriginal groups must recognize the long-term benefits of supporting the framework. Non-passage of this legislation will obviously have serious consequences on the implementation of the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claim agreements, and will open up the government to cases of further breaching these agreements.

I urge the groups in the southern Mackenzie Valley to focus not on the present challenges that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act may present, but on the long-term benefits of supporting the passage of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which establishes one integrated system of environmental management for the Mackenzie Valley.

I also ask these groups to focus on possible interim measures in these circumstances until they can settle their land claims. I can say that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has communicated that the legislation will be amended to accommodate the uniqueness of these claims at the appropriate time.

The concern of industry is of a different nature, based primarily on anxiety about a new and innovative regime for land and water regulation. Questions regarding the efficiency of the system and the technical capacity of the boards have been raised, and I would like to address these concerns from the Gwich'in Tribal Council perspective.

The bottom line here is that Bill C-6 is forcing industry to change the way it deals with the public. Under the new regime, the public, of which 50% in the Gwich'in settlement area will be members of the public appointed by the tribal council, will now have direct input into ensuring that land, water, and wildlife are protected from development that has irreversible impacts on ecosystems in the north.

Although industry is anxious about the new system, as government has undoubtedly already stood before you to state already, the new regime will be rigorous and will offer a great amount of certainty to proponents seeking permits and licences. This certainty rests on the fact that the act promotes a one-window approach to the land and water board, which will guide the applicant through a set of checks and balances. These checks and balances either will lead to a successful licence or permit being granted, or will put the application through an environmental assessment and possibly review, if significant adverse impacts or public concern are identified by the board. The land and water board will be the clearinghouse for all permits and licences.

The Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines has raised concern respecting the technical capacities of the new board, in terms of both staff and board membership. They have raised concerns about the ability of the board and staff to conduct conformity checks with a land use plan, preliminary screening, and appropriate consultations within the 45-day period. They are questioning the ability of the board members to make informed decisions without bias or potential conflicts of interest.

It is important for the Gwich'in Tribal Council to comment on this concern raised by industry. Industry's concerns are founded on, we believe, fear of change as well as fear of a regime that opens up development proposals to a higher degree of scrutiny by the northern public. No doubt this is a dramatic change from the old DIAND regime. However, we believe it is a positive one and one that will not slow but streamline the process of development application, permitting, licensing, and environmental assessment and review in the Mackenzie Valley.

As for conflict of interest and objective decision-making by board members, it is imperative that we state that the Gwich'in Tribal Council appoints its members, as does Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, at arm's length. Those members are appointed as Gwich'in public, not as servants of the Gwich'in Tribal Council.

• 1135

If a potential conflict of interest arises, there are measures in the legislation—part I, subsection 16(1)—to mitigate any conflict, and it is the chair's responsibility to abide by this provision.

In listening to the concerns of industry, it seemed that the underlying message, the one that was in between the lines, was a lack of a profound faith in the ability of the public government process in the land claims regions. No doubt there will be a learning curve for some people who are appointed to boards.

The time for our participation in government has come with the signing of our land claims agreement, and we are ready for the challenge. Both our interim land use planning board and the land and water working group have been preparing for the passage of this bill, and all members have learned about the roles and responsibilities of being a member of the public board.

We of course want to be assured that our implementation resources enable us to successfully train new board members who will require assistance in the future.

The concerns raised are of little surprise. They reflect a common reaction to sweeping change; namely, that change, no matter if it is seen as positive or negative, is difficult for people and organizations. That in itself should not impede the passage of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a unique piece of legislation that will radically change the face of land and water regulation in the Mackenzie Valley. It will, in time, assist all groups throughout the Mackenzie Valley, including those groups presently without land claims in the southern regions, to participate in decisions affecting land, water, economic development on those lands and environmental protection.

I have been a member of these discussions for some 23 years, since my last teen years, and I remember all the debates that occurred when we argued the case on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The foundations for those arguments seemed to arise out of the idea that aboriginal people had no say whatsoever on the whole issue of managing land, managing its resources, managing in the interests of their people.

This particular piece of legislation does that. It's not perfect—no piece of legislation is—but the fact is that this gives us the first opportunity collectively, in a collective sense, to be part of a process of managing land, water and resources in the interests of our people.

It's important to state that the Gwich'in and the Gwich'in Tribal Council are confident that the new regime will be able to balance environmental protection with development potential in the region. Northerners recognize that the challenge to successfully implementing their land claims will be striking that balance. The Gwich'in are open to renewable and non-renewable forms of economic development that are sustainable, that will enable us to continue a way of life we have enjoyed since time immemorial, but that opens the doors to the future.

We are just beginning the process of reviewing initial drafts of a land use plan prepared by the interim land use planning board. With the passage of Bill C-6, the permanent board will ask the Gwich'in Tribal Council to sign off on this plan, after which, with government approval, we will act as the gatekeeper for land and water use within the settlement region.

The land use plan will strike a balance between conservation and growth. In finding this balance, we'll have to ensure that our land and culture are protected and that our economy is strengthened.

I urge all members of the committee to support Bill C-6. In doing so, you are honouring the fulfilment of obligations of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories under our comprehensive land claim agreement between Canada and the Gwich'in. In doing so, you are furthermore recognizing aboriginal rights within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, to participate in land and water management within the system of co-management. I believe that's a very important part of what it is that we're trying to do, defined within our final agreement and legitimized through a proposed act.

• 1140

I made mention about the issue of co-management. As Gwich'in, we could always take the view that we have no relationship to governments that exist. That could be our position. We could take the position that we have the right to manage the resources and the water in our region purely for the interests of the Gwich'in. But that's not sensible, and really, that's not the responsible way of dealing with these particular issues.

We can argue the case that we can have some sense of sovereignty, and in some ways we do on those lands we own. But the reality is that we have to be responsible enough to recognize that there are other Canadians who live within our lands, within our regions, and there are circumstances that exist, such as resource development that occurs on our lands and within our region. We have to be responsible enough to recognize when we put forward a management regime that it recognizes that we don't only have to protect the land and water and the resources, but we also have to recognize the economic circumstances not only in our region but in this country.

I read with some interest, Mr. Chairman, the argument about encouraging investment in our region and the fact that this piece of legislation might discourage that. We've always been cognizant of that and that jobs need to be created for our people. I really think it's important for people to understand that we're as much interested in investing in our people, in resource development. We've done it, and we've been successful at it.

We also recognize one other factor, and it is that we are the last region at the end of the Mackenzie Valley, and no matter what happens, you have to understand that we are the results of upstream decisions. All across this country we see situations where in the management of resources—river resources, water resources—the impacts are not always at those communities at the upper end of a watershed but always cumulative to downstream communities. When we look at this piece of legislation, it's with a view that we understand that all regions have a cumulative effect on others and that this process of our land management regime is intended to bring together the collective decision-making in the interest of all regions and all communities.

I appreciate the concerns raised by some regions and some aboriginal leaders, but the simple fact is that we argued this issue many years ago, almost 20 years ago, when we argued the case on the Berger inquiry. We needed to be part of the environmental process, the decision-making, in a collective sense. We cannot, as in the case that was raised, balkanize the regions so that they have their own separate institutions that have no relationship to one another; it's not going to be workable. We're coming forward with a suggestion on supporting this piece of legislation, with the idea that it's to improve the circumstances, not to take away from the rights of others to negotiate their own agreements.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say thank you to the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the staff for inviting us and for listening to us. I want to say it's my pleasure to be here, and I'm prepared to answer any of the questions that may arise from the committee members.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. It's an honour for us to welcome you and your team. I found your comments particularly interesting and helpful to us as we proceed to examine Bill C-6. Thank you for your presentation. Your considerable list of accomplishments is indeed impressive.

• 1145

Ten years ago, I spent two days in Inuvik. Had I known that you were there, I would have stopped by for a visit.

We will now proceed to questions. Mr. Konrad, you have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): I want to thank you for a really excellent presentation. I was making notes on all the accomplishments you've had in the various levels of government you served in.

One question that arose to me doesn't concern legislation. You're the president. Is there a chief? If so, what's the relationship between the chief and the president?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I'm the president. In this particular situation, the chiefs still exist in each community. We are having discussions about the concept of renaming the president as a grand chief, because that's the body that represents all four communities and all four chiefs in a regional context. This is included in the way we structured ourselves. That's how it works.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Are you an elected president?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Yes, I'm elected.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So you had a voice through the legislature over the years. You claimed that legislation has been passed by higher governments that has affected the land negatively, and the people have not had a voice in that type of thing. Do you want to comment on why the concept of having members from the different areas in the territorial government wouldn't work to accomplish the same means being accomplished through the setting up of land claim agreements with boards and panels that are answerable within the areas?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I think there's one underlying principle that has always been argued, which is for the direct involvement of aboriginal people in the decision-making process. While it could occur, you might say, in the Legislative Assembly, the fact is that there are specific rights that have been negotiated and that exist through either land claims agreements or existing treaties. Those are specific, constitutionally protected rights that exist.

Nothing we're undertaking in this particular case suggests that the legislatures or the Parliament of Canada don't have the right of passing legislation. They still do have that authority and that role. In fact, they have that responsibility.

What is important in this particular instance is that you have a management regime that has been established, and will be established, through legislation. The important component to it is that there is a working relationship between the government and the aboriginal people. That's the difference in this particular instance. We're not in any way suggesting that we take away legislative authority from the various legislatures or the Parliament of Canada. That is in existence even within our particular agreement.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So the membership of your various boards is based on membership in the various land claim agreements that have been signed. If you're a member of the Gwich'in people, you can be a member of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, which would have some government authority within the area. If someone from the Sahtu Dene or Métis moved in there, they would be disenfranchised with respect to how the land is managed.

• 1150

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Well, not necessarily, because in that particular case you still have representation from the Sahtu, representatives of the Sahtu Dene Métis.

You have to understand that historically we had five regions in the Mackenzie Valley. There are land claims regions now which are dividing into even greater differences, but at one time, when we first began the process of establishing the Indian brotherhood, there were five particular regions. There was the Gwich'in Mackenzie Delta area. There was the Sahtu, now the Sahtu Dene Métis. There was the Dogrib area. There was the Deh Cho. There was the South Slave region. That was the basis on which we operated. Each particular region had representatives even in the Dene Nation, and in fact now even in the Métis Nation. So we divided.

Now it's different, because you have land claim proposals which are coming from different perspectives, from the Treaty 8 region, the North Slave Métis, the South Slave Métis. These are beginning to be regions that are more specific to land claims proposals.

That is the difference between what originally existed and what is occurring now.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: You talk about one government imposing its regime on another government, yet just the other day we heard from the Deh Cho, who totally disagree with what is being proposed here in this bill. How do you respond to that?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: As I said earlier, it's important to recognize not the concept of imposition.... We're trying to ensure this region has representation. It would be different if we were making the decision without consideration for representation from this region, or contrary to it. The simple fact is that there's a collective approach we're trying to take here and we want to ensure there is representation.

The other thing we've never done is we've never indicated, as the Gwich'in Tribal Council or the Gwich'in leadership, that the Deh Cho, the South Slave, Treaty 8, or the Dogrib never had the right to negotiate their own agreements, and we never indicated that their agreements could never change the circumstances.

I'll give you a good example of where we had to fight and struggle recently to get appointment to a review board. The biggest one was the BHP process. There was no guarantee on that board review that we had guaranteed representation to review that particular project. Nowhere in existing legislation is it stated that the aboriginal people will be represented in any process.

Let me talk about the Deh Cho. It's interesting that the chief and a few band members had to go out and camp in front of the access for a mining company into an area, the Horn Plateau, which they believed to be very important from a renewable resource basis. They had no say in issuing the permits. This process at least gives them hope that they are going to be consulted and they will have a say in the process. Existing legislation? That doesn't exist.

I think it's important for us people to understand that while we want the legislation, there is a forum now, these things may not happen in the future, and they will be consulted. That's very, very important.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Our next questioner is Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I too wish to congratulate you on your presentation which I greatly appreciated. I do, however, share some of my colleague's concerns. In addition to the Deh Cho, there are other aboriginal groups in the region, such as the Chipewyan and the Métis. You also stated, and I agree with you, that the government has long imposed all kinds of things on aboriginal groups without even consulting them.

That's exactly what I've been hearing from people who have yet to sign the comprehensive land claim agreement. A process is underway to set up boards in the Mackenzie Valley, boards which these groups claim to be opposed to at the outset.

• 1155

Therefore, my concern is that people are saying that a decision made by the federal government and by several aboriginal groups is now being imposed on them. If the reverse were true, that is if an agreement had been reached with the Dogrib and the Deh Cho over water and land management boards in the Mackenzie Valley and that this decision was being forced upon you before you had even signed your land claim agreements, would you not react in the same way?

[English]

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I'm not in a position to react the same way, unfortunately. The fact is that we do have an agreement.

All I can tell you is that I speak from experience, from knowing the history of the aboriginal leadership, and I don't say that what we're doing is necessarily perfect, but if we're looking for perfection we're in the wrong business.

What is important here is that we understand there are some basic and important principles that have to be considered. First, when you talk about land claims, the basic principle is that the aboriginal people want to protect their interests in lands, waters, and resources and to ensure that they have a say in the decision-making, whatever that might look like or however that might come about.

In this particular situation, it's important that we understand that the decisions regarding resource development are taking place today, not two years from now or five years from now. They're taking place today. We had the review for the diamond mining industry two years ago and that's happening today. And every time we don't allow ourselves as aboriginal people to participate in these processes we lose a very important lever in decision-making.

While we may suggest there is an imposition here of legislation, the important thing for us is that we want to ensure that aboriginal people have a say in the process. We can go away and have our own process if that's what you want, but the simple fact is that it's not reasonable and it's not practical. Governments are elected to make decisions themselves. This Parliament of Canada is elected to represent the interests of Canadians. As an aboriginal person, as leader for the Gwich'in, I have a responsibility to represent the interest of the Gwich'in. That's the nature of the land claims agreement.

I respect the position that your leadership has taken. They're representing the interests of their community. But at the same time, I think it's important that we ensure that the aboriginal leadership is represented in these processes right now. That's what is important for us. We're not taking away the right of representation. If we were taking away the right of representation it would be different, but we're not. We're trying to make sure that Canada lives up to an obligation to ensure and guarantee representation. That's what's happening here.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: As president and perhaps even chief of the Gwich'in tribal council, you have my complete confidence. If I were in your shoes, I would probably respond that I'm here representing the Gwich'in and that I am doing a good job of it. There is an agreement and a bill on the table.

Now then, I want to get back to an issue that I touched on earlier.

• 1200

If a bill, say an mended Bill C-6, provided for the establishment of the three boards mentioned in the bill and if these boards could operate only in those regions where a comprehensive land claim agreement was in place, such as the one applying to the Sahtu and the Gwich'in, could we hope to achieve the same results? I think this would be logical and moreover, this is in the agreement which will take effect when the bill is passed. Therefore, if this bill were to apply only to the Gwich'in and to the Sahtu, would you be just as satisfied with it?

[English]

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: You have to be careful about the issue of amending just to make certain that certain regions are withdrawn. If the suggestion is that we withdraw the regions and that they have no representation, I can't agree with that. I think it's not a good thing to do. If you're suggesting that we respect the interests and the right of aboriginal first nations to negotiate their own claims agreement, we have never argued that case. It is their right to negotiate. It is their right to make sure that their interests are somehow protected in an agreement that's similar to our agreement or one that changes Treaty 11 and Treaty 8, and we have never argued that case.

But it's also important to understand that you could, if you wanted to, create seven—and that's based on the land claims groups—management regimes. But I don't think that's practical. I don't think that's reasonable. When you talk about the costs—and I read this again in the transcripts of Hansard—more than one, or a refined one-window approach, would cost taxpayers a great deal more money. Well, if you want to cost the system more money, then create seven different processes, because that's exactly what you would do. So we're cognizant of the issues and the arguments that have been made on cost factors.

The other thing that's important is we always take the view that we're not in any way opposed to negotiations occurring, but I can't force the Deh Cho to the table to negotiate with the Government of Canada. But I am concerned about a process that will also discourage the issue of development or investment in our region. It's a mistake.

Nothing that I'm suggesting here is in any way taking away the right of that region to negotiate. In fact, if anything, what we're trying to promote is a concept that it is the choice of the Deh Cho, but we want to guarantee that if they choose to participate, they will have guaranteed representation in the process, the north will have it, and so will the Government of Canada.

So that's the approach we're trying to take here. It's not that we're opposed to any negotiations, because we didn't see them being opposed to us negotiating and we would never take the view that they don't have the right to negotiate. It's their right, and we want to ensure that and protect it.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): The question I was going to ask has been covered somewhat already.

I'd like to say, first, that I really appreciate the presentation you've made. The point you made with respect to resources is a very commendable one in terms of not seeing the resources as something that you'd want to put a claim to exclusively for one group of people, but, rather, seeing them as something that should be shared by all Canadians in a co-management approach.

The concern that has been expressed through my regular committee member, as I understand it, relates to the Deh Cho people. The concern that's been put forward is that they feel this bill would disenfranchize them as a nation because they have not negotiated their treaty and their land claims and that would dilute their say over their land and their resources. They've expressed the view that they'd like to see the bill amended to exclude them. Maybe you've covered that already, but I would like to explore it a bit further.

Is it possible to have this bill amended in a way that would exclude just that particular aboriginal first nation and still accomplish the kind of goal that you'd like to see accomplished?

• 1205

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I'm not sure how it could possibly occur. I'll give you an example. The river that provides the greatest drainage in Alberta and British Columbia is not only the Slave and the Peace Rivers, it is the Liard. There have been some proposals that major hydro dams be developed on the Liard River in the B.C. section.

My view is that if you were to suggest that this would not be applicable in the Deh Cho region then the Gwich'in would never have a voice ever to speak about the Liard dam on the proposals. You would basically take that particular region out.

As the farthest region downstream, which could have the greatest consequences from the reduction of water, I would suggest to members of this committee that we would have great concern. If that region was removed, then what voice would we have? We'd have little or no say. The whole concept of what it is that we are trying to do is to make sure that the Deh Cho have a say about what resource development happens in the Dogrib-Rae area. it's to have a say about what pipelines are built into the Sahtu. That's the whole issue, and it's important that it's not only the aboriginal people but the argument that people who reside in the north, including those people who are interested like governments, have a say in these processes.

It's a cooperative, collaborative approach we're trying to promote. It is not intended in any way to undermine, as I indicated earlier, the rights and interests of people. If anything, what we are trying to do is to make certain that people are in fact guaranteed representation. It is very unusual that these kinds of pieces of legislation are passed in this country where you have guaranteed representation from particular aboriginal groups.

That's not to suggest that there will not be questions. But I do say that it's important to understand that if we wanted to we could have come to this approach that, as the Gwich'in-Sahtu claim, the Deh Cho has no say in our lands, the Dogribs have no say, the South Slave have no say. It doesn't work like that.

I think that the one important principle behind aboriginal people is always to view the collective as an important factor, and that's what we're trying to consider in the legislation.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to thank you gentlemen for coming down here today. I think it's very important that you've done this. There are a number of issues at the table and this is a far-reaching agreement that's going to hopefully be around for a long time. I think the basic feeling is that it's a good agreement and I think there is a lot of support here for it. Sometimes if we don't hear submissions from the people who live in the area we have a very poor understanding or a limited understanding or a narrow perspective of what actually is occurring in the regions.

I only have one point I want to make, and I want to be clear in my mind that you're satisfied with this part of the program. I totally agree with what you said on the collective nature of this in the downstream factors involved.

In the bill as it exists now, are you satisfied with the process that any concerns you may have about downstream effects or downstream pollution throughout the entire region will be met by this bill? It's not just in the downstream of the Mackenzie but also on the rest of the borders. Is there a system in place, to your satisfaction, that will encompass this if a mine happened? Because the borders of all of these areas do not follow watershed areas. They do very roughly, but many watersheds cross the border in areas besides the Mackenzie River. So if there's a mine in one specific area and if there is pollution—hopefully there wouldn't be—it may actually end up in another area. Does the process allow for that type of negotiation and an agreement on how to combat that? Is there room there for arbitration?

• 1210

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Yes, there is room for arbitration. There's room for arbitration in terms of our agreement and there's room for arbitration.... Also, if people want to utilize the appeal processes, the courts are available for those kinds of issues.

I want to say that we're not absolutely certain that all the issues and concerns we have regarding land and water are going to be answered through the act, and I don't expect them to be. What I do expect is that we will put in a system of management to ensure that we can do a better job than the one we've done so far and that we can do it in a collective sense. That's important.

The other issue is that somehow the technical capacity of aboriginal people has been sometimes questioned. I'm going to say it this way: I don't always say that the best person to sit on a board is a specialist. It doesn't always work like that. The specialist can provide the advice, but the fact is that good decisions are based on common sense and on understanding what factors you're dealing with, not technical expertise.

Also, there have been a number of questions and concerns raised—and I was at the session that was held in Yellowknife with industry—about the time period. But other than the concept of 45 days for permitting and licensing, there's no guarantee about how long an environmental assessment will take. It depends on the nature of the project. In this country, we've seen all kinds of commissions and environmental assessments that take place go on longer than originally proposed. We've had that experience. Nothing is for sure.

One other thing that I wanted to say is that from the industry viewpoint, we have no problem about trying to make sure that the system works.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're currently experiencing problems with the telephone lines. We can continue the discussions, but we will have to go slowly. It's as you wish. I'm only chairing the meeting. In a few minutes' time, we will be able to continue and proceed to a second round of questions.

Do you have a brief question, Mr. Keddy? Go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just want to go back to my original question. I wasn't questioning anyone's ability to make decisions. Specifically, my question was this: Are you satisfied that the system is in place, as encompassed by this bill, to arbitrate after the act's in place and to allow negotiation of problems that may and probably will arise at some time or another? It's dealing with exactly what you're talking about now, and it's greater than just the Mackenzie River, because there are many watersheds in the area. And if the pollution is going from one area to another, are you satisfied that the bill will allow for negotiation or arbitration of that?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Yes, I'm satisfied—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Good.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: —that it will work.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay and Mr. Bryden will be splitting their time. Mr. Finlay.

[English]

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

• 1215

President Nerysoo, I want to thank you very much for coming down here, as my colleagues across the table have said. I've served on this committee now for nearly two years, and I don't think I've heard a more lucid, intelligent, far-reaching explanation and presentation on what it is we are trying to do with respect to aboriginal people and the Constitution of this country. I want to thank you very much for that.

If I get the chance I think I'll ask you, and maybe some day in the House I can get up and repeat your words. I've repeated the words of Elijah Harper once or twice, and I think yours would stand in good stead in that regard.

I've got a question. The preamble to the bill states that the Government of Canada intends to review, in consultation with first nations of the Mackenzie Valley, pertinent provisions of the act in relation to the negotiations for self-government with those first nations. Have you any problem with the wording of that preamble? Are you satisfied that will take place? Are there some provisions in the act you particularly want to refer to that are pertinent to self-government negotiations as they go forward?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: No, the only section.... There's a clause that deals with the recognition of aboriginal rights, in subclause 5(2). The only thing you might consider in that particular instance is the recognition that treaty rights and self-government agreements would be something that should be considered there. In my view, generally speaking that will protect all aspects of any claim agreement or self-government negotiations that might occur. In my view, that would then encompass the concern that might be raised regarding self-government issues as well.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I think that's why subclause 5(2) was put in there. I appreciate your comments.

I have one further question. Subclause 5(1) says that in the event of inconsistency or conflict, 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. I have a little difficulty with that, in that I agree wholeheartedly with your characterization of the ecosystem and the total integrated effect of what you do in one region or another of a watershed, particularly in the Arctic, where the ecosystem is if anything far more delicate than other parts of the globe. I would hate to think we'd come up with something from the Indian Act ten years down the line that would upset the orderly development and practice of these boards on a total ecosystem basis. Have you got any comment on this?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Could I ask Brian Crane, our legal counsel, to respond to that specific one in the legal context?

Mr. Brian Crane (Legal Counsel, Gwich'in Tribal Council): This is a technical clause, essentially. The land claim under the Constitution would prevail, but this bill has been drafted in a way that attempts to follow the wording of the land claim agreement, so there is not likely to be any inconsistency. If by mistake or some court interpretation some years down the line there is a conflict, then the land claim agreement technically would prevail.

• 1220

To your point on the Indian Act, there is only one existing reserve in the Northwest Territories. Well, there are two. There is the reserve at Hay River and there is a reserve at Salt River, which is north of Fort Smith and is quite small—it's a one-square-mile reserve.

The Indian Act has certain provisions relating to Indian reserves and the administration of lands within Indian reserves. This bill does not attempt to change that in any way. But those are the only areas that clause would relate to.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of you, the parliamentary secretary, and all the other members of this committee to the fact that I think Mr. Nerysoo has identified a very significant shortcoming in this bill, one we might want to address with an amendment. I will need a few minutes to explain. It pertains to the fact that beginning with clause 9, on general provisions respecting boards, as we go down through the clauses we find no clause that pertains directly to identifying the responsibilities of these boards.

Mr. Nerysoo said something I think really strikes to the heart of being Canadian. He raised the issue of the custodial responsibility we as Canadians have in terms of our cultures and regions. Now, whether it is in the Mackenzie Valley around Fort McPherson or it's in Newfoundland, where there is a very unique culture to be protected and there is a unique environment to be protected, or it's in Quebec, where a language and a distinct culture are to be protected, each one of these regions of Canada and these subgroups who live in the region and culture have a responsibility to protect, to look after, shall we say, the health of that culture and that region. That's what this bill is all about: giving the peoples who live in the Mackenzie Valley a right to a say on the health of the region; and I think we all agree with that.

But Mr. Nerysoo, you took it a step further, if you don't mind my analysing your remarks. What you said was that this isn't just a matter of the Gwich'in interest. This is “because we are a people of the region, we are going to look after the resources and assets of that region for the benefit of all Canadians”. Those are the magic words.

I see the spirit in which you have made that remark is actually reflected in the statute in paragraph 35.(a), which pertains exclusively to the planning boards of the Gwich'in peoples. We read in paragraph 35.(a) that:

the purpose of land use planning is to protect and promote the social, cultural and economic well-being of residents and communities in the settlement area, having regard to the interests of all Canadians;

I submit to you, my colleagues, that this is something that belongs in a more general area of the legislation. I note that this spirit, which is a very Canadian spirit, is not reflected in the preamble. The preamble says everything else, but it doesn't say this legislation is for the benefit of all Canadians. However, I am not very much a fan of preambles, because preambles go before the enactment. They are comfort zones in legislation, but they don't have the force of an actual clause in the legislation.

So I will put this to Mr. Nerysoo now. I would suggest that in the spirit of the responsibilities conveyed for the planning boards of the Gwich'in people, the responsibilities in clause 35, a new clause should be created under the general provisions on boards, one that imitates or echoes the responsibilities expressed in paragraph 35.(a).

I don't feel I should move an amendment at this time, Mr. Chairman, because I am sure we would like to consider this at some length, but I do congratulate Mr. Nerysoo for having raised this issue so this committee can consider it.

• 1225

I will conclude my remarks by asking him—because I really have to ask the witness something—if he himself sees any problem in applying the principles of responsibility expressed in paragraph 35(a) to a general principle of responsibility for the boards that may be convened under this piece of legislation.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I'm not sure. I'm not a member of the House of Commons.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Bryden: You've got more experience than I have, I'm sure.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I want to say, though, that section 35 also is a section that comes out of our agreement, so in that sense it's difficult for me to say yes or no, one way. All I know is that it's very specific in terms of the guiding principles with regard to land use. Land use itself is not specific only to the issue of resource development...but, for instance, access for Canadians to lands in our particular region and to the north. It is also access to these resources by companies and industry.

So when you're dealing with land use planning you have to recognize that you have a responsibility to allow for these lands to be used and accessed by other Canadians in the interests of Canada, but recognizing their specific special interests and rights that are in the land claims agreement that have to be considered in any land use plan. I view it in those terms.

I don't know how to answer your original question of dealing with it in the text of the legislation. I'd leave it up to you to determine whether or not that's possible. But on principle I think it's quite clear that when we dealt with the issue of land use planning we were also recognizing that there is a Canadian interest we had to consider as well.

Mr. John Bryden: I will go no further, Mr. Chairman, but I would submit that that is a principle that belongs higher up in the legislation, if that's possible.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You will have to be very brief, Mr. Patry, since we are coming up on our video conference with Inuvik. We're having problems with the telephone lines. We will adjourn after your question. Subsequently, we could go to a second round of questions with Mr. Nerysoo's group and with the witnesses from Inuvik. Are we agreed to move on to the Inuvik witnesses? What do you think?

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): First, if you're ready to go to the teleconference, we could go to the teleconference and come back with our witnesses afterwards, so as not to mix everyone up, which otherwise is how we're going to end up.

I just want to make a point to my colleague Mr. Bryden. He was talking about the principles guiding this bill. If you're reading the land claim agreement, in volume I under the Gwich'in comprehensive claim you're going to find in article 24(2)(ii) all the principles. I mention this just so he will know about it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're standing by. We'll adjourn for five minutes.

• 1229

• 1246

The Chairman: We will now hear from the representatives of the Gwich'in Interim Land Use Planning Board and the Gwich'in Land and Water Board. Can you hear us?

[English]

Please give me the names of the people for the Gwich'in Interim Land Use Planning Board.

Mr. Cruikshank, Mr. Snowshoe, and Mr. Simpson, is it possible to start your statement immediately?

Mr. Ron Cruikshank (Planner and Co-ordinator, Gwich'in Interim Land Use Planning Board): Yes, it is.

The Chairman: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: My name is Ron Cruikshank. I'm with the Gwich'in Interim Land Use Planning Board.

Also present in this room is Charlie Snowshoe, who is our Gwich'in nominee. Brian Ferguson is with the Gwich'in Land and Water Board; he is not part of our presentation but he is present. Shannon Ward is a staff member with the Gwich'in Tribal Council.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: I'd like to thank the standing committee for allowing us to present here today. Our primary purpose for presenting is to show the standing committee what our land use planning board does.

The interim board was created when the land claim agreement was signed. We are not the permanent board until the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is in place, but a lot of the work we have done will be similar to the work that a permanent board would do, so I thought it would be a good opportunity to show you some of that work.

I'm going to send you a snapshot of the history of the activities of our board. I think the key to what a land use plan can do, for this region and for other regions that have settled land claim agreements, is that they can clarify what the land will be used for. The land claim agreement and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act will clarify the ownership and the management of a land area. The land use claim can answer the question of what the land is open for or available for, what uses are possible. That's the question a lot of people ask after changes with ownership and changes in management.

• 1250

Secondly, I think the land use planning board at a regional level can understand the land and the water resources of a region in a lot greater detail than has been the case in the past with planning done out of Yellowknife or Ottawa. At a regional level you become far more familiar with the region and you understand the issues associated with it.

We began in 1993 by establishing our office and getting our board up and running. We began with an issues paper that went to each of the communities in the southern area. We asked what land and water issues were of interest to the people in the region.

We were expecting to use the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea land use plan as our blueprint, but what we found in the early 1990s was that the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea land use plan was produced during a period when there was a lot of hydrocarbon activity in the region. In the late 1980s that activity left and there were major changes in the ownership and management of the region.

We concluded that we needed to write a new plan, and we produced our strategic plan, which outlined our plan to produce a new plan. It was a plan for our plan. Producing that strategic plan was probably the most important step we could have taken, because it set the course for what happened after that.

We were instructed to choose a geographic generation system for the region in the implementation plan for the land claim agreement. We successfully did that, and we are now very active in loading information into that information system. We fulfilled that obligation of the implementation plan for the land claim agreement.

We produced a plan options document, which looked to some extent at what the implications of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are to a plan for this region. The plan options paper also set out different possible routes for a land use plan to take, and we got feedback from government and industry on which options they would prefer.

We produced a community protected areas report that got the communities thinking about what areas in the southern area they would like to see protected in one way or another. We have also been, throughout our history, a major location for gathering information. I'm going to send you the second half of our history.

So we have expended a great deal of effort—

[Translation]

The Chairman: If I could interrupt for a moment, since time is moving along here, I have a question.

[English]

Is it possible to finish by 1.30, before question period in the House of Commons?

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: Shall I finish my presentation?

• 1255

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: I'm just about done.

We are currently working on our land use plan. We are expected to have a preliminary draft plan by Christmas and hopefully a draft plan by the end of this fiscal year. That's as far as the interim board can take any type of plan for a region without the Mackenzie Valley Resource—

(Editor's Note: Technical difficulty)

[Translation]

The Chairman: We hear you just fine.

The clerk informs me that this is due to the different area code. Everything will be worked out next week.

[English]

Go ahead.

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: To conclude, we are nearing the completion of a land use plan for the settlement area and we will shortly be getting to a point where we require the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to bring our work to fruition and to bring it into the resource management framework of the region. Our board has been functioning as a public board and has been doing its job as laid out in the land claim agreement, and it could function as a permanent board when the act is passed.

If there are any questions, we can field them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have a question? Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Good day. It's a pleasure to talk to you.

As a land surveyor, I have some interest in geographic information systems. I could get all technical, but I guess that's not really where we want to go.

One question I have for the members of the committee who were nominated is I'd like to know how you were nominated, and secondly, what your qualifications are to sit on this board, just for my own information.

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: Are you asking—?

(Editor's Note: Technical difficulty)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Just for my own information, I wonder if Mr. Snowshoe and Mr. Simpson are technicians in respect of land use planning, professional people, or members of the community who review the plan.

(Editor's Note: Technical difficulty).

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Oh, not again. I'm going to quit.

• 1300

Mr. Grant McNally: Just let them answer. When it kicks in, just let them answer, because I think they got the questions.

The Chairman: The answer is coming by fax.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: If they can get a line.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Can we do this another day, or are they hard to get together?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Perhaps we should wrap up the meeting, because if this continues all afternoon...

[English]

Oh, last chance. Go ahead with the answer.

Mr. Charlie Snowshoe (Gwich'in Interim Land Use Planning Board): Yes, okay. I would like to say good morning. I really enjoy your set-up here, with this going off and on.

Talking about how we got nominated and appointed, I sat on the Beaufort Sea Land Use Planning Board in 1988. We put in a report and you people cut it off; you didn't agree with it. So I'll just explain to you what is going on.

To your question, I was nominated by the Gwich'in Tribal Council to sit on the Interim Land Use Planning Board, and then I was appointed by the federal government to sit on the Interim Land Use Planning Board. I serve as the Gwich'in rep and I'm the vice-chairman of land use planning... [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]. ...Bob Simpson is the Gwich'in rep nominated by the tribal council and appointed by the federal government.

We have two government representatives from the department. You've had some meetings with them, and you know their qualifications.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Questions?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm going to pass.

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: No questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. President. Shall we try one?

The Chairman: Yes. You have 20 seconds.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Finlay: In Bill C-6 there are general provisions for nominations to the boards, and the federal minister has the discretion to appoint a chairperson in the event that a board does not, within a reasonable time, nominate persons acceptable to the minister. Do you think that would ever occur, or is that some safety factor we need in order to get on with the land use planning?

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: I could see it happening. I don't think it will happen very often, but it is a possibility that the minister might have to appoint a chair, that the board can't agree on a chairperson. I just don't see it happening very often.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Do you have any questions, Mr. McNally?

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is probably contained somewhere in a paper that I don't have before me, but how long are your appointments for on the board? Is it a three-year term?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Has there ever been any talk of maybe a structure like a school board, an elected group of local representatives, or anything of that sort?

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Grant McNally: What would your feeling be about something like that? Do you think there would be any benefits to that, or detriments?

• 1305

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: I feel that board has been working well under the current structure, so I think what we're doing now is the proper course of action.

Mr. Grant McNally: You feel it's working well.

Mr. Ron Cruikshank: Yes.

The Chairman: Ms. Lindell.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

From Richard Nerysoo's presentation we understand you didn't have much participation in the BHP review. Would you have had more chance to be part of the BHP mine environmental review if this proposed act had been in place sooner? What participation did this board have in that review?

Mr. Brian Ferguson (Interim Executive Director, Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group): This is Brian Ferguson, speaking for the Gwich'in land and water board. Perhaps this question would be more pertinent to my talk. Or would you like me to respond to that now?

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: You might as well respond now. I don't know how long we're going to have the line.

Mr. Brian Ferguson: As for the BHP review, I think we'll get into this a little more during my presentation, but the ability of the land and water board to participate in that review is strengthened by the fact that it's more of a community involvement in land and water use decisions. That review obviously went through the federal EARP process at that time. After passage of the bill it would go through the MVEIRB environmental assessment process. So the initial application would have been made to the Mackenzie Valley land and water board. Then it would have been reviewed and a project of that size would have been bumped up for environmental assessment and review by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, which you will be hearing from, I believe, next week.

So in that sense, yes, we would have had...[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ferguson, do you have a opening statement?

Mr. Brian Ferguson: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I'm Brian Ferguson, the interim executive director for the Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group. I'm here today to present and discuss the working group's purpose and activities to date. In providing the standing committee with this information I hope to ensure this committee has the necessary understanding of the framework, structure, and groundwork completed by the working group to date. This may assist the standing committee in its deliberations on the proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I will start by providing the standing committee with a brief history of the working group, some of the development activities, the integrated resource management framework we're working on here, geographic information system development, the land and water tech work, education and training direction, communications, coordination, and policy and procedural development.

The Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group was created in November of 1995. The working group was to do preparatory work which would allow a smooth transition from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issuing land use permits and the Northwest Territories Water Board issuing water licences to the Gwich'in land and water board processing and issuing these approvals. The core function of the Gwich'in land and water board will be the review of proposed developmental activities and the issuance of land use permits and water licences within the Gwich'in settlement area.

In order best to perform this function, the Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group has adopted the approach of integrated water resource management. This approach will provide for a holistic ecosystemic understanding of the activities associated with various types of development and the possible impacts to the land and water resources of the development. By having this understanding, the board and associated commenting agencies and organizations will be able to provide the best input to enable the board to mitigate negative impacts of the development.

• 1310

The working group commenced hiring staff and setting up an office to start the groundwork and do necessary research required by the soon-to-be board. The working group hired me in April 1996, and the rest of the staff came on throughout the course of that year. Positions presently or soon to be staffed with the working group include executive director, executive secretary, finance officer, resource manager, geographic information systems specialist, land and water technician and land and water technician trainee.

The board office is located in the Chief Jim Koe Building in Inuvik. This office space is presently shared with the Gwich'in Interim Land Use Planning Board.

Office organization infrastructure has been moving ahead rapidly. This is a necessity, as a great deal of the work to be done is dependent upon clear and concise filing, rapid information flow and transparency of process. Filing systems have been developed. Computer storage, retrieval and information transfer systems are well under way. Front office space has been provided to allow public interaction and service for the applicants. Financial management systems have been developed to ensure an accurate and accountable flow of funding.

With this basis and structure, the staff of the Gwich'in land and water board should be ready to meet the challenges associated with the issuance of land use permits and water licences.

The Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement provides for a new management and regulatory system in what is now known as the Gwich'in settlement area. As well as specifying what the general goals and objectives for the claim are, it specifically sets out a number of principles by which planning and management are to be undertaken.

The concept of integration and co-ordination is referred to a number of times throughout the claim and the draft Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. A number of sections refer specifically to integrated resource management and co-ordination of various bodies involved in planning and management. This includes both wildlife management and land and water management and regulation. The land claim sets out all the co-management boards and their respective mandates, as well as the skeletal structure for how they are supposed to work together. The larger context is provided by existing legislation and policies in jurisdictional issues.

In order for the future board to be kept informed of all issues related to a particular development, the working group felt it to be worth while to adopt an integrated resource management approach to decision-making. This has been described locally as a way of working together to take care of the land. Integrated resource management refers to managing the whole ecosystem or environment, including soil, water, trees and other plants and animals, to meet a number of needs. It should include consideration of both renewable and non-renewable resources. It consists of sharing and co-ordination of the values and inputs of various agencies and public and other interest groups when conceiving, designing and implementing policies, programs and projects.

Ideally, both ecological and socio-economic information should form the basis for land and resource planning and management strategies. Ultimately, IRM means managing human actions so that the health of the environment is secure and resources are available for both present and future generations.

An integrated approach provides for interaction with all groups in the search for relevant information, shared values and, ultimately, actions that are feasible and acceptable. We will need to pay attention to both the organizational and external environment and make planning an ongoing process.

There are basically four types of integration that we need to consider in our IRM framework: integration of ecosystem components, which involves managing resources from an ecosystem perspective; integration and co-ordination of relevant groups and agencies, which involves making sure each group understand their role and how they fit with all other groups; integration of western science with local or traditional knowledge in the decision-making and management framework; and integration of different values, viewpoints and uses. We need to ensure that everyone's viewpoint is included and that a range of uses of the environment can be met.

The co-management boards began their process in moving towards developing an integrated system in April 1996, when the different boards agreed to work together on an integrated management resource framework.

A number of important steps have been undertaken: development of background materials, including discussion papers; a number of workshops have been held with various agencies, co-management boards, Gwich'in organizations, community groups, federal and territorial governmental departments and industry.

There's been a series of integrated resource management products and projects. There have been roles and responsibilities. The Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group has taken a lead in organizing a chairs and executive directors meeting amongst the co-management boards to discuss roles and development of job descriptions for board members.

• 1315

There has been community participation and communications guide development. There is a Gwich'in phone book that informs community members what board should be contacted for which questions, and also gives public updates on activities.

Some information management work has taken place. There has been meta-database development to determine where all the information exists within the Gwich'in settlement area to allow people to make educated decisions. There's been a contact database developed. Traditional knowledge policy is in the process of being developed generally with the Gwich'in Social and Cultural Institute as well.

Other items of importance that need to be worked on are cumulative effects assessment; the land and water board also working with the land use planning board in the development of a land use plan; the land and water board working with the Gwich'in land administration to develop land control rules, which mesh nicely with the regulatory system designed in the MVRMA. Policy and legislation review and monitoring must continue. There has to be a review process for land use permits and water licence applications. That's been under way over the last year and a half or so.

We're also into GIS development. A key tool for the storage and transfer of geographically relevant information is the Geographic Information System presently being developed by the Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group. Once in place, this system will provide the board with the most up-to-date and concise information on the types and locations of resources in the Gwich'in settlement area. This information will allow board members to make informed decisions on what resources may be impacted by proposed development. This information will also be accessible by the communities so they can inform the board of any other issues or concerns they may have about a particular development proposal.

The work will also be available to industry and government agencies in a two-way flow of information. Work on this to date includes digital-based map development; pulling together data from other sources, be they government, academic, or Gwich'in organizations; transferring data from draft community land use maps to computer format, as Ron referred to a little earlier; and working with the Gwich'in Social and Cultural Institute toward including the traditional place name data set.

As is quite apparent from the activities identified above, much of the activity necessary to ensure accurate and complete background information is available to allow the land and water board to make informed decisions depends upon the close co-operation, co-ordination, and integration of many organizations.

The land and water technician's office has been involved in a variety of activities. These include developing training schedules for the land and water technician trainee; developing working relationships with external government agencies; producing reference database of mitigation and restoration measures used by the land and water regulatory agencies; and reviewing land use permits and water licence applications forwarded to the board office by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

We've taken it upon ourselves, as a transitional measure with the local office, to circulate these applications within the Gwich'in settlement area on a trial basis to see how the information and communications network is flowing back and forth. To date it has worked very well. Then we compile those comments and return them to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to actually develop the land use permit.

We're assisting with land use application development, assisting other boards' staff with projects and workshops, and developing operating procedures for use with field equipment and field activity sheets. This work will certainly put the board in a good position to perform duties once MVRMA is enacted.

The Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group has committed itself to the concept of education and training for Gwich'in beneficiaries. The training programs will allow the Gwich'in the opportunity to assume staff positions with the Gwich'in land and water board. The training and development of Gwich'in beneficiaries is the key prospect to allow the land claimants to assume responsibility for claim implementation and decision-making processes associated with self-government, empowerment, and future direction within the Gwich'in settlement area.

With this in mind, the whole concept of education training takes on greater light and responsibility than just the ability of the board to function. This activity is of far more importance than the time and funding expended to date.

• 1320

To assume the responsibilities of the professional staff positions associated with board functions, the incumbent requires a minimum formal western education, varying for each position, as well as an intrinsic understanding of the land and its people and its values. Western educational accreditation varies from college diploma to university undergraduate or graduate degrees in resource management or related fields. These levels of education should provide the incumbent with the necessary writing and communicative skills to allow for successful completion of job tasks and programs without the frustration of not having the necessary background.

The working group has started a few initiatives to assist in the training and development of Gwich'in beneficiaries. The working group hired two summer students during the summer of 1997 to perform a number of tasks in house and some in-house training. Tasks included database development, draft discussion papers, and GIS digitizing. Some limitations on this type of program were associated with permanent staff time required for training. This is time well spent. However, it has to be appreciated that when staff are training they are not performing their function. This will be an ongoing issue, as it is expected that the same summer staff will not be returning on an annual basis.

There has been some training of permanent staff as well. In the financial management staff, the financial management officer has been off on training programs in bookkeeping and accounting and is coming back and has made quite good progress along those lines. In regard to the other permanent staff hired, as it is such a new and innovative direction there's also additional training required for them as well.

The working group has hired a land and water technician trainer and a land and water technician trainee. The trainee is presently in a co-operative education program in a lands management course at Aurora College in Inuvik and working with the board during practicums. This trainee mentorship style of training seems to be the most common-sense approach to information transfer and training. Although it is in a test phase at the present, the initial indicators are positive. There has to be a great deal of ownership and pride of accomplishment instilled in the trainee position to ensure program completion.

The success of such programs is greatly dependent on the commitment of the board to make available necessary tools, time, and financial assistance to the trainee to complete his or her training schedule. An equal or greater amount of commitment and dedication is required on the part of the trainee to learn and apply the necessary skills and complete the board's function. This program has been initiated at a technical level, and we've been looking at introductory positions such as GIS technician and land and water technician as the introductory positions.

Board membership training has also been under way. A lot of that has been shared training with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, as well as some associated training with the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board. This should put the board members themselves in good stead for dealing with responsibilities once the act is passed.

For communications, we have been developing internal communications packages within the settlement area for use with the communities and other organizations within the settlement area. But the Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group has also been directly involved in assisting the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with its broader-based communication activities, which will reach out to other federal and territorial departments—

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Do we let them know how much time they have when we send them the notices?

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Brian Ferguson: Yes.

The Chairman: How much time do you need to finish your statement? Do you have a conclusion?

Mr. Brian Ferguson: I will conclude now.

• 1325

The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much. I have a problem with the video. Go ahead.

Mr. Brian Ferguson: The co-ordination aspect of the working group has been an active participant with other working groups and federal and territorial regulatory authorities up and down the Mackenzie Valley.

The work advanced in this forum pertains to a consistency of approaches when it comes to broader-based issues, such as preliminary screening, cumulative-impact monitoring, as well as the transboundary nature of a lot of the water licences we're going to be dealing with.

With this initial interaction taking place, we hope that we will be able to achieve a more consistent approach to permitting and licensing issues, as well as on environmental impact evaluation and assessment.

The working group has met and had conference calls on several occasions since its inception. As well as approving and overseeing staff programs, significant progress has been made in developing operating procedures and policies for this newly formed board.

The draft document covers board vision and legislative responsibility right down to the detail of office operations and personnel policy. The draft has been adopted by the working group and forms the basis of future operations.

Additional work is required on this document. However, it is viewed as a living document. With the immaturity of this board, it is completely understandable that future revisions will be required as the board gets up and running.

This concludes my presentation to the standing committee. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions that standing committee members may have for the land and water working group.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson. The members of the committee appreciated your presentation.

We will now proceed to questions. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. As I said, I'm a land surveyor. I've worked on geographic information systems, so we could sit all afternoon and discuss the thing.

The question I have is related more to the bill itself, which allows for the sharing of facilities for these planning boards. I was just wondering whether that's a possibility there. Would you find that you would have more resources for the training and actual production of your strategic planning documents there and that type of thing? Could you comment on that?

Mr. Brian Ferguson: As I mentioned in the presentation, we're presently starting off this phase with the interim land use planning board. We have two shared positions. One is the secretarial position, and the other is finance and administration. We are trying to maintain some budgetary constraint by sharing these resources.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. My question was more directed toward other areas in the Northwest Territories, such as working with the Sahtu on the actual planning and preparation of the documents.

Mr. Brian Ferguson: The geographic sparsity, I guess, of the situation leads to some difficulty there. As well, the Sahtu claim is set up quite a bit differently on a community basis. With their present board development, they have the Sahtu real resource board residing in Norman Wells, while the Sahtu land and water board will be residing in Fort Good Hope. As for the land use planning board, it's not known where they're going to reside yet.

So we've made every effort within the Gwich'in settlement area itself to try to maintain some consistency or the ability to hold office space in similar locations, but I really can't see that occurring outside the settlement area.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thanks very much. I'll let somebody else ask a question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: No, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson. I appreciate your statement and answers.

[Translation]

We will conclude with Mr. Nerysoo.

[English]

Mr. McNally, you have a question.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1330

Mr. Nerysoo, going back to what you were mentioning earlier about balkanization—I think that was the word you used—with the different regions if they were working independently of one another, I have some real concerns, which other people have mentioned as well, about the Deh Cho and the concerns they had in their presentation to us the other day. I know you mentioned that they would have representation and be able to consult on these boards, but I think their point was that consultation doesn't mean consent in their area. That was one of their main concerns. I think one of the concerns they did mention, which we have to really take into consideration, is they feel as though this is not going to be something they can live with.

These are your neighbours. I'm sensing from them that this would forced participation for them in this agreement. I know you alluded to it earlier, but I'm wondering what kind of relationship you have with the Deh Cho people and if this is going to be a workable situation, given their perspective. Given their presentation the other day, I don't know how it could work.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I would answer it in the following way. I didn't hear all the issues that were raised by the Deh Cho. Personally, I've never had a problem working with the leadership of the Deh Cho. Their perspective on what their rights entail obviously is very different from the approach we took at the negotiating table, that at some time in the process of negotiations you had to make certain concessions and compromises. Their view is very clear; it's that they're a quite sovereign group of first nations. We say the same about our particular first nations as well.

But we're also living in circumstances in a country wherein we have to develop a working relationship with other peoples that have immigrated to our country. We have to accept that there is this other group of people here. In saying this, sovereignty itself has to be dealt with in that context. If you feel you have absolute jurisdiction with no consideration for other people, then you'll have to accept that argument.

I don't think that's the argument you would accept as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Grant McNally: I don't think that's the argument they were making either.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Yes, but you have to remember from what perspective they've come. You have to understand the position they put on the table. I think that's the understanding we had. That's not to suggest they're not prepared to negotiate. That's the point we've articulated very clearly.

The other point made by them was that they didn't feel we should have any say in their business if they didn't have any say in the business of what was going on in British Columbia, or for that matter what was going on in Alberta. The fact is the act allows us now to be part of a joint review process. Right now there is no system that allows us to do those kinds of things.

It's been a long history. You think about it in the context of the decisions of pulp mills in Alberta, the dam being built on the Peace River. Those kinds of issues have had consequential and cumulative effects on the watershed. We all understand that. I do want to say that our intention is quite clear. We cannot allow a system of review and management of lands and waters without our participation, without aboriginal participation.

• 1335

If in the end they negotiate an agreement that changes this particular relationship, then that is for them to decide; but I don't think it would be fair for us to suggest that they not participate. I think that's all we're saying.

This legislation allows that participation. If they choose to negotiate something that is different and amends this legislation, so be it. But if they change the system, then you can be certain that you have to go back to the negotiating table with the Gwich'in, because it changes the constitutional relationship between the Gwich'in and the people of Canada and the Government of Canada. That's a very important consideration.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I'd like to follow up on the process of consultation. I understand that clause 6 requires that the federal minister consult with the Gwich'in and Sahto first nations with respect to any amendments to the act, and they give a definition of consultation in clause 3 of the bill. In your view, would that consultation as defined in the bill provide for adequate input from the Gwich'in Tribal Council with respect to any amendments to the proposed act?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I guess in our view it would, and that's the reason why we've agreed to that clause in the proposed legislation. We're satisfied right now that it would respond to our issues.

Mr. Gordon Earle: While the bill would have effects throughout the Mackenzie Valley, the federal minister's obligation to consult does not include the territorial government or other first nations of the region. What's your view of that?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Obviously, again, it's a matter of whether or not they're interested in consultation. We have no problem with the idea of ensuring that there is an obligation on the part of Canada to consult with those first nations if there's a requirement to do so. We've never been in a position to argue. I think that's an important principle and it should always be maintained as a consultative process.

Mr. John Finlay: I want to go on on the environmental assessment and review.

The process set out in Bill C-6 differs from the regime under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in a number of ways. For example, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act explicitly requires greater opportunities for public participation in the assessment than are provided for in Bill C-6. CEAA also provides for participant funding at the post-initial screening phase of environmental assessment in order again to provide for meaningful public participation.

Would you give your views on the modifications in the existing CEAA system that would be brought about in Bill C-6 for the Mackenzie Valley? Also, is there any provision in Bill C-6 for participant funding, and if not, why was this not deemed necessary?

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I'll answer the first matter on the review in terms of its change. Obviously, as you pointed out, there is a change.

I'll ask Mr. Crane to respond to the question about funding.

Mr. Brian Crane: I don't believe there is any provision in the bill for guaranteed participant funding. That's not something that was debated extensively in the consultation discussions. The orientation of the Gwich'in in those debates with the federal government was to make sure that everything in the land claim agreement is in the bill. Participant funding was not mentioned in the land claim agreement, so there is nothing there. We didn't take a position on it. It isn't in the agreement.

Of course that doesn't prevent this committee from making a recommendation in that area if they feel it's desirable.

• 1340

On consistency with CEAA, the bill of course provides for an assessment process that is northern. That was a very conscious decision. And it tries to avoid any overlap between the two processes. There was a great desire, though, to make the northern process as compatible with the CEAA process as possible. And certainly the intent was that there should be full involvement by the public in the assessment process. Certainly at the public hearing process at the stage of panel review, the intent was that the public has equal participation, as in the CEAA process.

In terms of assessment, the word “assessment” as used in CEAA and in the Mackenzie Valley act doesn't quite mesh, because CEAA has a slightly different language. But the intent was, if I may say so, to make those processes completely compatible. There is nothing in the bill that would prevent full input by the public into the assessment process.

Mr. John Finlay: You're saying, then, that they are similar enough so that if we carried out the process under Bill C-6 someone wouldn't challenge us by saying that it should have been carried out under CEAA or vice versa.

Mr. Brian Crane: Yes.

The Chairman: Mrs. Lindell.

Mr. John Finlay: I think Mr. Nerysoo is going to answer the first question.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Yes, just for further clarification on this particular matter, a number of concerns were raised about a transitional approach, about the existing CEAA legislation and the processes that were being used, and industry was in fact already involved in CEAA.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council, at least, has no problem with those organizations continuing under that particular legislation, because they're already in it. In other words, they're using the CEAA process. My view is that we let them complete the process according to those rules so that it allows for the transitional approach rather than having those companies go into this new system and start all over again. My view is to let them go through the system as it exists and grandfather, you might say, those organizations and industries in that process so that they don't have to renegotiate the process they're in.

Also, a great concern was raised about permits and licences that had already been issued and whether or not those permits had to be issued again. Again, our view is that we don't have a problem with grandfathering those particular licences that have been issued so that they don't have to go through the Bill C-6 process. They are there, the licences and permits have been issued, and the rules should remain. That is in fact the discussion we've held.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Madam Lindell.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: This is a totally different topic from Mr. Finlay's. It's not particularly a question to the group, but I was a little concerned about Mr. Konrad's remarks about the qualifications of the people appointed to these boards.

• 1345

I would like to go on record as saying I don't think we should question the qualifications of the board members if they don't have a degree in something, or question whether they are technical people, because I think all aboriginal people get discounted for the knowledge they have of the land and the fish and the animals. Because they don't have a university degree doesn't mean they don't qualify to be on these boards. When we get a recommendation endorsed by the different groups involved in this, for instance the Gwich'in, they are being appointed with the blessing of the council.

I'm not sure where the questioning was going, but I think the knowledge these people bring is equivalent to that of people who have studied fisheries or land management or biology. That's just a point I would like to get into the record.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Lindell. We will now go to Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I definitely want to respond to what you have said, considering that a person's qualifications matter nothing. If they said they were a fisherman and fished every inch of the Mackenzie River Valley and never went to school a day in their life, that does not mean to say that disqualified them from having something to say.

We have come here this morning. I see that Richard Nerysoo is the president. I understand he has been a cabinet minister and leader of the government of the Northwest Territories. That was put on the table for our consideration. Brian Crane is a lawyer. James Ross is something called an implementations coordinator. He is a former chief.

To ask a question about someone's qualifications is entirely within the purview of this committee and should never be discounted. No one should take it that because a question is asked it is a derogatory comment toward anyone. I object to that entirely. In particular, I would like you to know I am part native myself.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. I see that Mr. Nerysoo has something that he would like to say.

[English]

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: I'm not sure if I should be the mediator or....

I just want to say the issue of qualifications, however you view it, is important, irrespective of the knowledge you bring to the table. I'll give you a good example. Just recently the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board was given an award for publishing a document, a book, on traditional knowledge. In fact, it's now being presented in Spain for the possibility of an international award. Now we bring that knowledge to you. That's for the use of anybody who comes to the table, for the technician's use, to know this is available.

There is one thing I really believe in, and I have said this not only in our own discussions in my organization, to our leaders. The important thing about these boards is the independent integrity of the process. They need to be seen as making decisions based on the information that's provided to them. They have to be seen as what you might call arm's length. Not everything is perfect in terms of arm's length, but they have to be seen as being away from the purely political process and making decisions based on the information before them.

I really think that's an important principle whether or not you are on the tribal council or a member of Parliament or a minister. You have to ensure there is this integrity of independence. Otherwise there will always be a question about the nature of the decisions and the decision-making process.

My view is once I give a name to the minister, that individual doesn't represent the tribal council; that person represents the people in our region but has the perspective of a Gwich'in.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: You passed on more than the name when you asked to have that person appointed.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: Oh, absolutely.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's my point.

Mr. Richard Nerysoo: There's no question about that.

• 1350

And there's one other important component. It was raised...and I read again about the criminal issues, the integrity and whether or not there were questions about that. I leave it solely up to the process of security checks to determine that issue. I'm not afraid to hear the minister tell me that the name that I have proposed or the tribal leadership has proposed or the community has proposed doesn't fall within the rules that are normally acceptable in this country. We have to follow that. So that, I think, has to be considered.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. We're running short of time. We'll conclude with Mr. Keddy, Mrs. Lindell and Mr. Patry. We have four minutes left. Mr. Keddy, you have two minutes.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's not a problem. Two minutes is fine, more than enough time. I'll be very brief and to the point.

I want to remind this committee, for a brief second, of what we're here for. We're not here to analyse the Gwich'in land claim settlement that's already been made—that's been done—and how boards are set up and who participates in them. That's not at all what we're here for.

A point has been raised here. Since it didn't affect the representatives here today, I didn't raise it today, but it will be raised at other times. Since you brought it up, I think it's a point we should think about. It certainly is the grandfathering of existing agreements. That may be in place in these circumstances, but there's some question about whether they're in place in other circumstances. If we're looking at the overall enactment of this bill and we want it to work, let's look at it as a first step and ten years later we may look at this and say that it needs some fine-tuning. However, for the rest of the area, the grandfathering of permits and licences already issued is something this committee needs to consider and to look at. I just want to bring that up.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I wasn't trying to insult Mr. Konrad, but I just want to clarify that, just from reading the transcripts, I didn't want industry to have a strong case, because I know industry is worried about some of the qualifications of the people on the board.

As for Mr. Snowshoe, I don't know if he absolutely answered your question as to what qualifications he had. I wanted to make sure that didn't become an issue, because I very much endorse the knowledge of the people who go on these boards.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I just want to conclude.

First, I want to say thank you to our guests from Inuvik, the Gwich'in Interim Land Use and Planning Board, the Gwich'in Land and Water Working Group, and the Gwich'in Tribal Council, whose leader is Chief Richard Nerysoo.

Mr. Nerysoo, your presentation was very accurate, very pragmatic, and through your representation, and mainly also through your answers, we can feel your vast experience. Today I understand a little bit more your concerns and problems, and I hope that this committee, with the help of all my colleagues, will be able to solve a little bit some of your problems.

Thank you very much for being here with us today.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Summing up, Mr. Nerysoo, we would all like to thank you for coming here today. I know that your visit to Ottawa will be noted by all Canadian members of Parliament and by all other First Nations in Canada.

The one thing that stands out in particular is the respect you have for all of the other communities in your vast region. Thank you as well to Mr. Ross and Mr. Crane. I wish you a pleasant trip home. Until next time.

I would also like to thank our interpreters for the remarkable work that they have done today, in light of the problems that we experienced. We would also like to thank the entire support team and the video crew.

Remember that at 3:30 p.m. this afternoon, we will be meeting with the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council.

The meeting is adjourned.