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

• 1544

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): We'll open this meeting on 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.

Let me introduce the witnesses representing the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council: Mr. John B. Zoe, Chief Negotiator, Mr. Ted Blondin, Land Claims Manager, and Mr. Richard B. Salter, Legal Counsel.

[English]

Do you have an opening statement, Mr. Zoe? You have ten minutes for your statement.

• 1545

Mr. John B. Zoe (Chief Negotiator, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council): First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for letting us appear in front of it to make some comments on the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I'd like to say that Grand Chief Joe Rabesca wasn't able to make it. He's tied up at an intertribal conference in a community he's residing in.

We want to make it clear right off the bat that we absolutely support the Gwich'in and Sahtu, but we're also here to suggest changes to the act that wouldn't hurt them in any way. We are also absolutely in favour of integrated resource management.

With those opening statements, what I'd like to do now is to give you a history of who we are and why we are here today. We live in the Northwest Territories, right now within the Government of the Northwest Territories. It's called the North Slave area, but in Dogrib we call it Monfwi gogwa ndeniitle. That's because we've been there for a long time, but at the same time we signed a treaty, number 11, with the federal government in 1921.

The people rely mostly on caribou and we live in four communities. In numbers we are a little over 3,000 people. The four communities got together in 1992 to make a resolution to get into a regional claim. Prior to that we were involved in the Dene and Métis claim that failed in 1990.

After 1990 we spent two years without getting into the claim process right away to make sure our people understood that to get into the claims process it means we are there to clarify our rights through negotiations, and we've been at it ever since. Once that was understood we got into the claims process in 1992, and we've been at it ever since then.

Last summer, in 1996, we signed a framework agreement, basically to say that we're going to negotiate within a timeframe. We're going to negotiate to clarify our rights, to implement our inherent right of self-government and a number of things, the use and management of land resources.

That leads us into how we got involved in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It's been a little over three years since we first heard about it. We haven't played a major role in it. There are no resources to get involved in that process, but we've made our views and suggested amendments known through letters. We haven't gotten any feedback to say that it will be entertained.

So basically we're here to suggest some amendments to the act. What I'd like to do now is to turn it over to Ted Blondin, land claims manager, to get further into details as to where we're coming from.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Mr. Blondin, if you please.

[English]

Mr. Ted Blondin (Land Claims Manager, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation.

• 1550

I want to talk a bit about the pressures on the Dogrib territory. The area the Dogrib are living in is also an area where the Slave geological province is situated. This is a natural rock formation where there are a lot of minerals. There is therefore a lot of mining activity and exploration activities happening in our area. This is an area that's in the direct path of the caribou migration pattern.

That area also is wholly within the Dogrib territory and extends into the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut. The area in the Mackenzie Valley where you find this rock formation is the land that's subject to the negotiations we're in right now involving land claims and self-government with the Canadian and the Northwest Territories governments.

It's in that area that Bill C-6 will have an immediate impact in the Dogrib settlement due to all these mining activities that are happening. The Dogrib settlement area has become a hotbed of development activity. There are a number of active mines in the area. There's a fair amount of exploration activity happening. It has become the hottest development area in Canada in terms of the mining industry.

When we were involved in the Dene-Métis claim that John identified earlier, we had an interim protection agreement in place. That order in council was in January 1991 with the federal government. After the Dogribs got involved in negotiations in 1992, we put in place, in 1995, an interim protection agreement for the Dogrib area.

Even prior to that, we experienced the biggest rush of claim-staking in the mining history of Canada. It was so much so that these claim-staking activities took place throughout 75% of our traditional territory, right into the community of Snare Lake. News/North published a cartoon in which somebody was driving stakes through somebody's kitchen table, which was very close to home. That's not available here for you.

So as for the recommendations we're making very generally for Bill C-6, we want to say again that the Dogribs are in favour of the integrated management of resources. In Bill C-6 there's no mention of treaties, yet the whole area we're talking about has been subject to Treaty 11, which was signed in 1921. Of course, other land claims agreements were established in 1992.

We should also indicate to you that the present definition of a land claims agreement, which is in clause 8, for instance, refers only to the Gwich'in and Sahtu. We would like to suggest some wording to further clarify the land claim agreements and self-government agreements in the future to protect the Dogribs and the negotiations currently taking place.

In the agreement there are rights that are identified for the Gwich'in and Sahtu. We recognize that those flow from the agreements that were negotiated with the Gwich'in and Sahtu, yet the bill affects all of us, including the Dogrib people. Therefore, we would like to have the provision of similar rights for the Dogribs as those for the Gwich'in and Sahtu. We're suggesting specific wording for that also.

Also, because this act flows from the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claims agreement, there are certain objectives and principles that have been identified in the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreement. As well, there will be certain objectives and principles identified in the Dogrib claim.

We would like to provide some guidance to the board members when they're making decisions so they can take into account these principles and objectives that are identified in land claims agreements.

Also, the environment knows no boundaries. Through the environmental impact review board, which is described in Bill C-6, we would like to provide for the democratic participation of other aboriginal organizations in there. Again, we have some suggested wording.

• 1555

The Dogribs understand the democratic process here, and some of the changes we're suggesting we've been suggesting to federal officials for the past four years. We realize this is the last opportunity for us to make these decisions and changes. We are strongly urging this committee to consider these amendments to clarify and protect rights in what we're doing now to try to negotiate these claims so that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act doesn't become a precondition to our negotiations currently taking place or to what other unsettled areas are going through.

That's the end of my presentation. I'd like to introduce Rick Salter, our legal counsel, and he can very generally speak to the specific amendments we are suggesting to you today.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Blondin. Mr. Salter.

[English]

Mr. Richard B. Salter (Legal Counsel, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take much of your time, because I know our ten minutes is running out.

The amendments that have been proposed have been provided to the committee and are listed in three separate areas, which Mr. Blondin has very adequately explained to you. These amendments are similar to ones we have been presenting to federal officials.

We do not accept that the present wording in subclause 5(1) or subclause 5(2) gives protection to those first nations who have not yet completed their land claim and self-government agreements.

We also suggest, in the amendments we've proposed for part II, that because Bill C-6 provides that the Gwich'in and Sahtu only will be involved in certain activities as rights, the bill results in the Gwich'in and Sahtu having rights in the Dogrib territory, even on Dogrib lands, that not even the Dogribs would have. I don't think that was anyone's intention. We ask this committee to correct that and to ensure that all the first nations have those same rights. That doesn't interfere at all with anything that's been promised to the Gwich'in and Sahtu in their agreement and it doesn't interfere with the integrated management regime.

The other point we want to make is the one Mr. Blondin has made, and I believe the committee has already discussed it. In relation to the participation on the Environmental Impact Review Board, we recommend the wording in subclause 112(1) be changed to “no less than” so we don't end up with Dene people fighting each other in the Mackenzie Valley when it's not necessary to do so.

I won't say any more than that now, Mr. Chairman. There may be questions. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Salter. Mr. Konrad, you have the floor.

[English]

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

Thank you for your presentation.

I must admit I'm getting a very quick education here in the land claims process. From what I understand, the government is dealing separately with each of the bands. Do you agree with that proposal, or do you think you should have had an overall negotiation that included all of the parties at once and moved in a more unified process?

Mr. John Zoe: Back in the seventies and eighties there was an opportunity to do something just as you mentioned. We've gone over that phase. It's taken a lot of work for the groups themselves to determine that they would go ahead and settle based on the rights they believe they have.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I guess I have five minutes here, so we can keep talking.

Are all of the bands, to the best of your knowledge, and your own, satisfied with the boundaries that are laid out in the agreements? I know they're not subject to negotiation right now, but you mentioned in your opening statement that the area you inhabit isn't exactly concurrent with what boundaries are there. In your statement it says there's a misunderstanding between what's written in English and what's understood by the Dogrib.

Mr. John Zoe: Yes, those are things we're working out in the claim.

• 1600

If you look at the map you have in front of you, it has basically five regions. Within that one region, the North Slave area, different terms are used for it. There would be what we call in Dogib monfwi goga naentiitle. You have the North Slave region. You also have what we call the North Slave geological province. They overlap each other in certain areas.

So if you talk about claims, it's a little different from talking about the Mackenzie Valley bill itself.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Fair enough. It depends on which boundary we're talking about, I guess.

I have another question that arises from your recommendations for amendments. When you get down to your third recommendation—I'm not going over to the page with the actual amendments—you recommend that the bill provide guidance to the boards so when carrying out their duties they respect and give effect to the principles and objectives of land claim agreements, future land claims, and self-government agreements and treaties. I wonder what is considered under future land claim agreements, if anything, and whether that is really necessary.

Mr. Ted Blondin: As has been described before, there are a number of areas that have not settled claims, and the Dogribs are one of the groups negotiating self-government. There are certain provisions in there which we would like to be considered in the principles and objectives we set out in our agreement. We would like them to provide some guidance to the board members in rendering decisions. There are no criteria in anything that has been described in the bill. There should be at least these principles they work from, so the decisions clearly reflect the objectives and principles outlined in the various agreements. That's why it's in there.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: How much consultation did you get during the drafting of the bill? You said there was none, or next to none, but you're supporting it.

Mr. Ted Blondin: We made ourselves involved in the process even at the point when I was invited to Fort McPherson when they were discussing this very bill. Also, when the bill was being drafted we made recommendations to federal officials about our concerns.

Our fear has always been that as this bill was being drafted, as the federal government was developing its positions in this paper, it would also be a precondition to the negotiations we would eventually enter into. It has always been our concern that we provide wording to Bill C-6 that would protect ourselves so how land and management is going to be carried out in the Mackenzie Valley does not affect our land claims and self-government negotiations. We've always wanted to put protection measures in this bill to do that.

Some of the suggestions we made earlier on have been incorporated, but not all, and some still cause some level of concern. This is why we've taken the approach that we would provide amendments on these various clauses that would need some clarification.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. Mr. Bachand, please.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): The notes I have in front of me indicate that a framework-agreement was signed in August 1996. Have there been any negotiations with the federal government on the land claims since August 1996? It is important for me to know that because I had understood that the bill we are studying followed on two formal agreements which have already been signed with the Sahtu and the Gwich'in.

At second reading, the Bloc Québécois had taken for granted that the people who weren't affected by the Sahtu and the Gwich'in agreements would oppose the bill since they had not yet been able to negotiate their own land claims and since, following an agreement with the Sahtu and the Gwich'in, they would come under a bill on which there have been no consultations with them. That's how I initially understood the situation.

• 1605

I'd also like to know not only what stage those negotiations are at currently but also whether I'm right to believe that you don't oppose the bill and only wish that it be amended according to the proposals you have submitted to us. Is it true that you'd be quite ready to support the adoption of the bill if the amendments you have put forward are taken into consideration?

[English]

Mr. John Zoe: Yes. In terms of being in the process of negotiations, government has a process with different steps to go through to finalize a claim. We signed a framework agreement in the summer of 1996. We hope to reach an agreement in principle in the spring.

I'll get Ted to explain the rest.

Mr. Ted Blondin: We're one of the first claims negotiating land claims and self-government at the same time. The Gwich'in and Sahtu negotiated land claims, but they didn't negotiate self-government; they're presently doing that. In 1994 Ron Irwin allowed us to negotiate land claims and self-government at the same time, and we've been going around trying to do that, but self-government is a very complicated matter.

So what we've decided to do, so that we prepare and show some measure of advancement to our people in the communities, is concentrate on the land claims elements of the agreement. We were able to determine how much land we would get and how much in compensation funds we would get. We dealt with the land claims side of the picture.

Now that we've done that, we are concentrating on the self-government elements of what we've agreed to so far with the federal government. As John has indicated, we hope to reach an agreement in principle by this spring.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Should I read your first recommendation to mean that one way out would be to specify that the bill should be made subject to Treaty 11?

If I understood correctly what you said about the map I have here, the whole Mackenzie Valley is governed by Treaty 11. You think therefore that one way of solving the problem would be to specify that the interpretation of the bill should be based on the assumption that Treaty 11 applies to everybody. Looking at the other map, I had understood that Treaty 11 did not include the Sahtu and the Gwich'in, but only part of the lands. Is it correct that you want to extend Treaty 11 to the entire Mackenzie Valley and that, if the bill said so, you would be ready to support the bill?

[English]

Mr. Richard Salter: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. Last time I saw you was in the northern Yukon two years ago.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, I remember.

Mr. Richard Salter: The Dogrib proposal does not include extending Treaty 11 where it doesn't exist already. There are many Treaty 11 rights that the Gwich'in have not surrendered as part of their land claim, and they're still there. Others of their Treaty 11 rights they did surrender as part of their agreement, but not all of them. So Treaty 11 does cover the entire Mackenzie Valley.

Thank you.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to say thank you for your presentation. It's very good; it's well organized and sets forth a pretty clear picture.

I have two questions. You mention that under the Dene-Métis claim process, an interim protection agreement and an interim withdrawal order protected the Dogrib settlement from development. Then you said these orders were withdrawn in January 1991 by the federal government without any consultation. Can you give me a little more background on that? What was the rationale for that? Was it to enable development? Why was there no consultation?

• 1610

Mr. John Zoe: Under the Dene-Métis claim, we were dealing with five regions. It included all those regions as outlined in some of the maps that some of the members have with them.

In order to negotiate with such a large group, we had to establish priorities as to who was going to do land selections first. We were somewhere in the middle or the latter part of the five groups, so by the time they got to us, there would have been so much third-party interest established that it would have been really difficult for us to make any land selection. So the purpose of that interim protection was to make sure that by the time the process reached us, we wouldn't have so many problems dealing with third-party interests and other interests that might have been established during that time.

That agreement was for a two-year period. If the two-year period doesn't work, then the negotiations break down. So there were two ways to get out of the interim protection. In 1990, when the Dene-Métis claim fell apart, it was claimed that the groups weren't the ones that walked away from the table; it was the federal government. So they took their interim protection with them, because they considered that a breakdown in negotiations.

Mr. Gordon Earle: My second question relates to your amendments, and it's a good approach to outline your concerns and then to be very specific as to what you feel will correct those concerns.

I turn to recommendation 2, where you talk about the definition in the act and then you recommend that it should read:

“first nation” means the Gwich'in First Nation, the Sahtu First Nation, the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council, their successor organizations or a body representing other Dene or Métis of the North Slave, South Slave or Deh Cho region of the Mackenzie Valley.

So if I understand the picture correctly, you've pretty much included all the aboriginal first nations in that area.

My question is, did you do this in consultation with the other first nation groups? I'm asking this particularly because the Deh Cho had some concerns about this act, the same as you have. I'm just wondering if they've given their okay to include them in this definition as a means of resolving their concerns.

Mr. Richard Salter: A quick answer to that, sir, is that the definition we've proposed is really the same all-inclusive definition that's in the act now. The only point we were trying to deal with is that the Dogrib people do not like to be referred to as the Dene or Métis of the North Slave. They are the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council. They are the Dogrib First Nation. They are a proud people. They have a really strong sense of identity. Eighty percent of them speak their own language, not English. To refer to them as part of a geographic region was in their view insulting, and that's why they added that phrase.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I see. So this is not to include others.

Mr. Richard Salter: It was not to make any proposed amendments to the all-inclusive definition.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I see. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Salter.

[Translation]

Mr. Keddy, please.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'll just take one second to thank you, gentlemen, for coming down, the same as everyone else has. It's important to be at the table for these discussions. We've tried the video conferences, and they're difficult on a good day; on a bad day they're impossible. So it is important to be face to face, and you can bring your concerns here.

I had the same question. I was reading the definition and reading it in the act and trying to figure out what the difference was. That's been answered very well.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Wilfert, you have five minutes.

[English]

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

With regard to your amendments, if I understand correctly—and I've only had a cursory reading of them—it's implied in the provisions of Bill C-6, but you want to make it crystal clear. I think the example that Mr. Earle raised and that you responded to is an example of just crystallizing that concern.

My question to you is, do I understand correctly or did I misunderstand that you said you had been proposing these amendments or amendments such as these for the last four years but you did not have a response?

• 1615

Mr. Richard Salter: I think Mr. Zoe was saying they didn't agree with us. There's another cartoon in the Northwest Territories that shows a picture of Mr. Zoe in a chair falling over backwards and says “Someone said no to him.” So there was a response, but the problem was it wasn't a totally favourable response.

The bill has gone through many changes. The last draft we reviewed was in the high twenties. The Dogrib Treaty 11 Council has received no resources to deal with this act. Along the way there were a number of suggestions and some of them have been incorporated into the act. I think the people who worked on it would tell you that. But fundamentally, the major issue in which we're trying to protect these ongoing land claim and self-government negotiations has not been protected. The clause the government drafters are relying on, clause 5, does not provide for it. What we propose will give that comfort, so that whatever is negotiated in the land claim and self-government agreements will be protected.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: So what's being proposed does not in any way take away from the principles outlined in Bill C-6.

I don't know who to direct this question to, but what was the nature of the objections from federal government staff as far as these amendments were concerned? Can someone answer that? My reading on first blush is that it does not take away and what you're asking for seems quite reasonable. Can someone from the department tell me what the nature of the objections is?

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Ask Mr. Salter what he understands the objections to be.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would ask Mr. Salter, but he's not the one who objected. I'm kind of curious to know. Mr. Dunlop's here. Can I ask him?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert, the witnesses are here and they submitted a written presentation. We are aware of their concerns. We'll go on with the witnesses and the questions. Department officials will have an opportunity to answer our questions later when we deal with the amendments during the clause-by-clause. Experience shows me...

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Since these gentlemen are before us with their proposed amendments, I thought it would be helpful to get clarification on the nature of the objections. That seems reasonable to me. I know this is probably not done.

Mr. Dunlop, you don't look like you're heading for the mike.

Mr. Chairman, I'm in your hands. I can ask Mr. Salter, but he's going to tell me what his interpretation is, and I'd rather get it from the horse's mouth.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert, Mr. Patry could perhaps give us more specific information.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would like to tell my colleagues this is the first time I've seen these amendments, and we are certainly going to take them into consideration.

Perhaps we can ask the senior government people from the department, Mr. Dunlop and his group, to answer all the questions of this committee before we go to clause-by-clause at the end of the process on Bill C-6. If the people want to see Mr. Dunlop and his team again, they will be provided with that opportunity. But I don't think it's agreeable to ask our witness why it was not accepted. He proposed it, and it's up to us to say why we don't accept or reject it. We're going to amend it, but I cannot tell you right now if we are going to accept it or not.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I wasn't asking the witness why it was rejected, I was asking the department. I also understood, however, Mr. Patry—maybe I misunderstood—that these amendments had been given to the department a while ago.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It could be.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert, this is a very good question and you are an excellent member of parliament. We'll give the department a chance to find a good way to respond to the concerns of our witnesses. We'll carry on with our discussions. Mr. McNally, you have the floor.

• 1620

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Fair enough. I look forward to that. Thank you.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): You were mentioning, Mr. Zoe, that there are about 3,000 people in your community. I wonder what kind of consultation had happened with the people in your community, if there were surveys, and how aware they are of this agreement and how it might impact on them.

Mr. John Zoe: You might have heard earlier from my two colleagues that we have a membership of over 3,000. The majority of our membership speak only the Dogrib language. Most of the leadership fall within that category. We have ongoing assemblies, regional meetings. We bring people together in the communities, when we make our rounds, to update them as much as we can.

Oral presentations and oral feedback are basically our methods of communication. What we, as people working for the leadership, do is to try to make sure we put all these things on paper so that we're communicating their views to the federal crown itself.

Mr. Grant McNally: So about 80% of the leadership working on the agreement speak Dogrib primarily? Would you say there's a language barrier at all, with some of the legalese language of a federal government bill and interpretation of what that would mean, practically, to the people in the area?

Mr. John Zoe: When I say most of the leadership, the ones in a leadership capacity don't speak the English language, but we know, through resolutions and through constant meetings with them, their aspirations as to what they want to achieve, the level of control and the type of self-government that they want.

Basically, our generation's role is to make sure we transpose those things onto paper, but we also spend a lot of time with our legal counsel to make these words reflect the aspirations of the people themselves.

Mr. Grant McNally: So the people themselves are relying on your leadership in consultation with legal counsel for interpretation of the impact of the bill?

Mr. John Zoe: Well....

Mr. Grant McNally: Not that that's a bad thing. Don't get me wrong.

Mr. John Zoe: I just got a little bit confused over here.

Basically, the bill we're working on has been with us for some time. In our office we have a couple of stacks of paper on Bill C-6. We have most of the drafts, and the drafts are, within themselves, a large pile. We also have those things communicated to the communities, as well as to the local leadership in each community. So we believe we're well informed as to what the Mackenzie Valley is about and how it's going to affect us. Those are where we get our direction as to how we're going to address it.

Mr. Grant McNally: I am wondering about the Deh Cho people and their objections to this. Has your leadership had an opportunity to speak to their leadership about their objections? Have you had an opportunity to do a face-to-face?

Mr. John Zoe: As we said earlier, we didn't get any resources to review the Mackenzie Valley. We've been doing it with our own resources, with our own time. We've looked at it with our own view as to how it's going to affect us.

We also know that here we have our own little hour and they also have their own little hour. So we want to make sure that—

Mr. Grant McNally: I was just wondering if you had talked to each other independently.

• 1625

Mr. John Zoe: Yes, communication goes on a lot, but I'm not sure if this is one of those we might have talked about a month ago.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): As my colleagues, I thank you for being here. Since I am a new member of Parliament, I am necessarily new to this committee. My questions may not be new to those who were already members of the committee.

In your presentation, you told us that you expect an agreement to be reached by the spring of 1998. If there is no agreement by the spring of 1998, what are you going to do? Will you carry on with the negotiations?

[English]

Mr. John Zoe: I think silence speaks for itself.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. John Zoe: We wouldn't be saying anything, nor do I think anybody would be listening to us if it fails.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: You have submitted amendments to us and the committee will look at them. Under the worst scenario, if the committee doesn't endorse your amendments, would you suggest—and the Bloc Québécois might perhaps entertain such a possibility—that Bill C-6 apply only to the Gwich'in and Sahtu area, since the bill flows from agreements that have been reached with them?

[English]

Mr. Ted Blondin: As we said earlier, it was never intended that we would disrupt what the Gwich'in and Sahtu have negotiated. We were always fearful that this act would set preconditions to our negotiations.

What we're doing here to deal with this is we have concerns and we will deal with them in our land claims agreements and our negotiations. Whatever concerns we have of the bill, we're confident that when we reach a final agreement on the Dogrib claim and it's ratified, what would happen is that our land claims agreement would be in place and this act may have to be amended along those lines.

But we don't want to leave it just at that. What we'd like to do is provide the protection in amendments, as we provided for you, so that our negotiations can carry on and reflect the amount of control and management we would have over land and water and the environment in our area.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you. That's all.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: I'd like to talk a bit about communication and consultation.

It's becoming increasingly clear as we listen to delegations that there has been a lack of communication and consultation with respect to people who are being affected by this particular bill. I think, historically speaking, of course, Canada has a poor record in that regard when it comes to aboriginal people. We have not consulted and dealt nation to nation.

I think you touched a bit upon that in the presentation you made, when you talked about when the orders were withdrawn and there was a rush of claim-staking in the mining area of Canada, such a mad rush that even the main street was staked out. That was the certain pattern that has been followed. Now it seems we've moved on a bit from that to a negotiation, where you're now negotiating a potential settlement on a land claim.

How do you see this particular bill as affecting the current negotiations or any future negotiations around that land claim?

Mr. Ted Blondin: The negotiations that are taking place at this point in time deal with the selection of Dogrib lands, retaining Dogrib lands for Dogrib use, and realizing that this act would have a Mackenzie-wide effect.

We're negotiating self-government, and the Dogrib will form a government in their area and we will provide programs and services. Governments make decisions, particularly on our own lands, and we feel comfortable that we would be able to address those concerns in our land claims agreement.

• 1630

With all the mining activity, as I indicated earlier, when the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board deals with permits and so on, a lot of those permits going across their table, or decisions they'll have to make, are happening in our area. We therefore want to make sure that as activities happen in our area the Dogribs are involved and have a greater say in what happens on particularly Dogrib-retained lands.

So that's how this bill would affect us. The majority of their activity would involve activity happening in our area.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I guess the other side of that, which I want to be clear on in my own mind, is that as you move forward, and once you complete your negotiations, do you think this bill, the way it's currently worded, would enable you to have sufficient input further down the road with respect to those matters involving the management of those resources? Or would you see that the bill in itself would be defective once you've obtained self-government and your land treaty?

Mr. Ted Blondin: I think at this point in time, we're basically providing the protection in the suggested amendments here in that they reflect that we're negotiating self-government agreements and that the negotiations wouldn't be affected.

The other thing also is that in our land claims there will be objectives and principles, and hopefully when the land and water board makes decisions those principles will be reflected in their decisions.

As well, we've always been in agreement with the integrated management process. We're not trying to affect the overall picture, but in negotiating self-government with a government dealing with activities happening in their area, we hope we would develop a process that would plug into the overall picture. That's why we're suggesting the small number of amendments that we're putting forward, and not doing major surgery to the bill.

Mr. Gordon Earle: In other words, if your amendments are accepted you would be quite comfortable with this bill going through, with those amendments.

Mr. Ted Blondin: Yes.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle. Monsieur Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just a comment on your comments about the integrated management process and the fact that the bill will set preconditions. There seems to be a concern on your part that the preconditions may affect your land claims that are ongoing at this time.

With that in consideration, do you see the agreements that have been signed with industry, with the mining companies, prior to 1992, when you stopped negotiations and then came back to the table—so there's a gap where you would have had, I will assume, little or no input into—as a specific area that could be problematic?

Mr. Ted Blondin: We entered into negotiations and put provisions in our 1995 interim protection agreement to sit on certain land and water boards, and also on a number of boards operating in our area. What has happened since then is that any time a permit or a licence has been required the Dogribs have been involved in that because of our interim protection agreement. So we've been involved with a number of mining companies and their applications, which has been a learning experience for us.

What has also happened because of this is that mining companies in the past have bypassed the Dogribs in dealing with territorial and federal laws in getting their mining activity going. But because we've been involved, what is happening now is that mining companies are starting to come to the Dogribs to explain to us what activity they're doing. It also has created an opportunity for the Dogribs to begin having discussions with mining companies on environmental matters, ensuring that the process that they're going under is environmentally sound. Once the Dogribs are comfortable with that we then begin negotiating impact and benefit agreements for mining jobs, training and shared revenue.

• 1635

Since our involvement on the interim protection agreement and negotiations on land claims, there have been more dealing with mining companies. We hope in our agreement it would solidify that even more.

The Chairman: Monsieur Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Salter, I take it you were instrumental in preparing some of these amendments, were you?

Mr. Richard Salter: Yes, that's right.

Mr. John Bryden: My experience around here is that actually this is a lot of amendments and governments are very loathe to entertain many if they can help it. Let me suggest this to you. I look through here and I notice one amendment for a subclause 21.(3), about reaching a decision of the board. That's an entirely new subclause you're introducing there. Can I ask you why that couldn't be taken up in the preamble instead? All one would have to do is just take out the first six words and insert

WHEREAS the intent of the agreement is that the board shall take into consideration the objectives and principles in land claims agreements;

Why can't we stick that in the preamble?

Mr. Richard Salter: I think you could. I would be delighted if you would. I don't think it's one of these substantive provisions which would need to be in the body of the agreement. It's an intention. Intentions fit perfectly well within a preamble.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay. Well, that's very interesting.

Mr. Richard Salter: Keep rolling.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm working on it. I'm surprised you feel a preamble has as much force as something that is actually a clause in the text of the agreement.

Mr. Richard Salter: Lawyers will argue about this, but the way our active judiciary works these days, I think especially in these matters, as a number of members have pointed out, the judges look for as much help as they can get about how to interpret these agreements. I think they look to preambles. They are very important to them now. So I think here, where we're talking about a clause where we're really talking about interpretation, that would fit there, whereas it wouldn't work with some other clauses, which need to be in the substantive parts.

Mr. John Bryden: When you were looking at these amendments, did any of you look at the general provisions for boards, which begin in clause 9? Your testimony indicated you were concerned there wasn't direction to members of boards on what their responsibilities are.

I noticed from earlier witnesses when I examined the bill this morning—that begins, incidentally, in part 1, “General Provisions Respecting Boards”—nowhere is there a responsibility of the board clause. Did you ever look at that as a place where you could put in an amendment that could address some of your concerns?

Mr. Richard Salter: To tell you the truth, we did look at that and we decided that within the land claim negotiations we're involved in, for the boards that are going to be established or other bodies that are being set up, we are going to try to identify the responsibilities. But the Gwich'in and Sahtu didn't do that fully in their land claim agrement, and with all respect, I think part 1 reflects what is in the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements.

Mr. John Bryden: I don't see that at all, because part 1 doesn't reflect what is in clause 35 of part 2, in which the Gwich'in and Sahtu land use planning boards.... It does set out the specific responsibilities of the board, and that doesn't exist in part 1 at all.

Mr. Richard Salter: No, I agree with you. Land use planning is the exception. They are laid out in the bill under land use planning. But the land use planning provisions in the bill here apply only to the Gwich'in and Sahtu.

Mr. John Bryden: Precisely. Now, can one take what we see in paragraphs 35(a) and (b), take the principles expressed there and apply them in part 1 as a new clause, and would that help at least some of your amendments? I'm not suggesting it would replace all of your amendments, but what I couldn't understand about this bill was that part 1 didn't give direction and responsibility to boards and part 2 did, but only to the boards composed of the Gwich'in and Sahtu. Why shouldn't we put it in part 1?

Mr. Richard Salter: Well, I think you could, but I don't think you could put in the language that's in paragraphs 35.(a) and (b), because they deal specifically with land use planning.

Mr. John Bryden: All right. Well, yes, I realize that. But surely instead of saying “land use planning” you can say the purpose of the boards or the responsibility of the boards is to protect and promote the social, cultural, and economic well-being, etc. Then you can go with this (b) and say the same thing, that the boards are to consider future land claim agreements and protecting and promoting. I don't understand why one can't take the essence of the good stuff in those two clauses and apply it as a general principle.

• 1640

Mr. Richard Salter: Again, I agree with you. It would be fine. We didn't think of doing that.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I make a suggestion, with the permission of the chairman? Can I ask you to give that some consideration over the next little while and see whether that will address some of the problems that you've raised in your amendments, if that's not too large a task to ask you to do?

Mr. Richard Salter: It's not too large a task. We'd be glad to do it. It would speak to some of our proposed amendments concerning what the boards have to take into consideration.

Mr. John Bryden: Is that in order, Mr. Chairman?

I would like it if they could submit that to the board, because it might have a bearing on what I asked the other witnesses this morning as well. It might solve the problem that everyone is sensing.

The Chairman: Mr. Blondin.

Mr. Ted Blondin: Since the committee is seriously considering looking at amendments to this bill and this bill affects all of us, including the Dogribs, one of the suggestions I want to put forward is that as amendments are being considered and drafted to the bill we will make our legal counsel available to help the committee draft these amendments. By doing that I think you're involving those areas that are affected by this bill—and that means everybody—and that we'd be able to provide the wording people will feel comfortable with in the passage of this bill. That's the one suggestion that I wanted to put forward.

Mr. John Bryden: I thank you very much for that. I must confess I haven't examined your amendments in full detail, but I shall do so. My experience is that if one can in one or two amendments address a variety of concerns—not just you, but other groups—that is the best way to go. I ask you to consider my suggestion of looking at that clause 35 and how it could apply to part 1. I would appreciate that very much.

Mr. Richard Salter: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zoe has said that this would be fine. I know we aren't being retained by the parliamentary committee.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Richard Salter: That is something we'll do from this end of the table. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden. It has been a great day. We have all been meeting since the morning, but I think that we can still have a last round, starting with Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: This question isn't so much about Bill C-6 as it is about the whole idea of the self-government agreement you're negotiating. You say that 3,000 people are members of the Dogrib First Nation. What's the total population of the area that's included in the land claim agreement you're negotiating?

Mr. John Zoe: About 3,000. The numbers are the same.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: No, I mean in the area. Oh, I see. You mean all of this shown enclosed in red here is not subject to the land claim agreement? What's the area?

Mr. John Zoe: I don't have that map in front of me.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It covers about a quarter of the Northwest Territories.

A voice: Does he mean square miles?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm a little lost. I don't see Yellowknife and whatnot included there.

Mr. John Zoe: I'm not sure what exactly the numbers are, but it's probably somewhere around 100,000 square miles.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Can you just explain to me in a real quick format what's involved in your idea of self-government or what is it you're negotiating that would be responsible for Bill C-6 with only 3,000 people?

Mr. John Zoe: One of the things I didn't mention right off the bat is that the Dogrib people are the largest group in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes.

Mr. John Zoe: The Gwich'in and Sahtu, who have settled their claim, are fewer in number than the Dogrib. The Dogrib numbers are also larger than the groups who haven't settled yet. If you look at it in the context, I think it makes a big difference.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have just one other little short question, then.

• 1645

The Gwich'in have already begun to implement provisions of Bill C-6: GIS has been selected, data loading is under way, land use plans are being developed. Are these things being done with the Dogrib, or are you waiting until you complete your land claim settlement?

Mr. John Zoe: One of the benefits of negotiating what you might say is third on the list in the Northwest Territories is that we have the benefit of the 1980s and we also have the benefit of seeing two ahead of us. So it gives us an insight into what needs to be done to prepare for those things that eventually we would have to do anyway. So we have begun internally to do a lot of that. We have got involved in GIS and other things in terms of preparing for land management.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Are these financed in the same way as the Gwich'in are at this time, or are you under a separate agreement because you haven't completed your negotiations?

Mr. John Zoe: They are financed through programs and with our own funds that we have raised so far. We don't have a specific program that is made available to us. We are doing that on our own. It is part of our research and things that we're trying to use to make decisions right now in an area that is affected so much by third party interests in development.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: To take my original question a bit further and to expand on Mr. Konrad's question, for the greater area, including the city of Yellowknife and the other settlements in the area, if we are looking at control over that entire area, are you also taking into consideration the grandfathering of original clauses and settlements and agreements—for instance, with the city of Yellowknife, the GNWT capital—and all those types of things, including the grandfathering of clauses and issues prior to 1995 with the resource companies? Where do we go on that?

Mr. John Zoe: We are not in support of grandfathering, firstly because most of the activity that is happening right now is happening in the Dogrib area. We have to look at it to make sure that.... As we say, this thing will probably give us the first opportunity to be involved in a meaningful way. So that is something that we talk about a lot amongst ourselves.

Mr. Ted Blondin: Also, I think the discussions in our claims recognize that there are third party interests. It is given that those interests will continue once we get into land claims discussions.

At this point in time we are still negotiating self-government provisions. We are into those discussions, but we have to get over some fundamental issues right now. This is why we are trying to put forward amendments to you so that the discussions on self-government at the table are protected and we can discuss those and this will not affect us negatively.

Right now there are not enough details in terms of self-government.

It is not so much a matter of a level of control within that whole area; it is how we are involved in decisions that are made on various activities.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The question specifically on grandfathering is, if you take prior to your interim protection agreement in 1995.... We have had a big staking rush in the north, and we understand that. On the activity that has happened since 1995, let's say there was an ongoing agreement at the time that hadn't been settled; therefore that might be open to take a look at. I am talking about something prior to that in the existing agreements, even though you may not have been involved in the process as much as you would have liked to be. I understand that it's pretty hard to start that process all over again; however, for the items from 1995 forward you probably should have been a part of that to begin with.

• 1650

Mr. Richard Salter: I think I understand your question now. We don't use the concept of grandfathering. Any interests that are validly created at any time previous are respected as one of the basic tenets of the negotiation. So, in your terms, they're grandfathered. We don't use the phrase “grandfathered,” but now I know what you mean. They are respected if they're valid. If some interests have elapsed, then of course they're not respected. But no third party will be alienated from their interest. No private property holder will be alienated from their interest. That's been a principle we've agreed to.

Mr. Ted Blondin: This doesn't mean there's an automatic process of moving from one step to the next. They still have to apply and comply with the laws of general application.

Again, as I said earlier, the Dogrib are involved in the land application process. We're involved in a technical board, to the water board. We're also involved in the environmental process in our area. So somehow, whatever activity happens, the Dogrib are involved in one way or another.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier would like to ask a question.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: It is rather a comment. I'd like to tell the witnesses that my party will study your proposed amendments to Bill C-6 and that we'll inform the committee of our views and our position. In our view, your demands are very serious and very valid. We'll examine them in order to determine what the position of our party should be. We'll try to support the committee as fairly and as responsibly as we can.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. You are doing your duty as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to the witnesses for not being here for the very start of their presentation.

I appreciate your coming and what you've told us. I have a very, I hope, simple little question—and my old English teacher is coming back to me, Mr. Salter. On your suggested amendments, it says the bold type is what's being added. I'm looking at subclause 78(1), at the top of the last page, the second part. It says:

pursuant to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, in the settlement area would be likely to substantially alter the quality, quantity or rate of flow of waters when on or flowing through first nation lands of first nations....

There has to be something not right there.

Mr. Richard Salter: What's not right is what's in Bill C-6, which says “through first nation lands of the Gwich'in and Sahtu”. That's only dealing with two of the five regional aboriginal groups. So what we propose there is that all first nations have that same right. So it would have to go back to the definition section of “first nation”. But it does end up in a strange grammatical construct.

The Chairman: Monsieur Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have a small question in regard to your last amendment.

You're asking about subclause 112(1), regarding the number of members on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, and you mention “not less than eleven members”. I want to be sure I understand pretty well why you want to have “not less than” instead of just “eleven” right now. Is it the fact that you want to be sure that if there was a split between the Dogrib in 1992—that is, the Dettah Ndilo communities in Yellowknife, the Ndilo in Yellowknife—you want to be sure that if there was at that time any further negotiation on land claims from this community, they will be entitled to have a seat on the board? I want to be sure I understand this amendment you're requesting.

• 1655

Mr. Ted Blondin: In our interim protection agreement there are provisions that guarantee the Dogribs' participation in these boards that are proposed in the act. But the Dogribs are at this time negotiating overlap agreements with the Yellowknives and they are on record saying they want representation. Rather than us naming specific numbers, there is no way of knowing how other first nations south of Great Slave Lake would want to be involved or how they would want to participate. Rather than getting into a numbers game, we'd just say no fewer than eleven.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you very much for the clarification.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): In reading through these, my sense is that the purpose of your amendments is to protect your future negotiations with respect to land claims and self-government. Is that correct?

Mr. Ted Blondin: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You also want to see there's recognition of the Dogribs as a first nations people, not just lumped together with North Slave, South Slave and all the remaining.

Mr. Ted Blondin: We just want a correct description of it, yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You also want, as Mr. Patry was just talking about, appropriate representation for the various first nations groups.

In essence, those are the three areas where you want to make certain there's appropriate protection.

Mr. Richard Salter: We also want to be included in the rights that are provided in the agreement to the Gwich'in and Sahtu.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I guess we're hearing that it's implicit in the act, and you're saying it doesn't give you the kind of satisfaction you would wish.

Mr. Richard Salter: We do not accept that it's implicit. We accept that we're explicitly excluded.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So we need to come to that agreement. I think we want the same thing; it's just a matter of how we put it in the bill.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Longfield. I thank you, Mr. John B. Zoe, and your whole team. We appreciate very much your coming here to Ottawa. You can rest assured that your presentation here today will help the committee. I appreciate your dedication and everything you do for the people of your very large region. I wish you a very pleasant trip home. Do you want to say a few words in closing?

[English]

Mr. Ted Blondin: I want to reinforce that we understand the democratic process here, and this is really the last opportunity for us to put amendments forward to provide whatever protections the Dogribs are seeking. We urge the committee to seriously consider these amendments and the possibility of us providing our legal counsel to be involved in the drafting of the amendment, so at the end of the day everybody is satisfied with the passage of this act.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to make our presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Blondin.

[Translation]

Our next meeting will be November 25 at 10 a.m. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.