AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 25, 1997

• 1013

[Translation]

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

Today, we welcome the Honourable Jim Antoine, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Antoine, would you please introduce your officials and then make your statement?

[English]

Hon. Jim Antoine (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Government of the Northwest Territories): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to everyone here. It's good to be here in Ottawa making this presentation.

Before I start my formal presentation, I would like to begin by stating that the Government of the Northwest Territories places a very high priority on fair settlement of land claims and the implementation of the inherent right of self-government and the development of natural resources of the Northwest Territories in a sound manner that benefits northerners. The bill before the standing committee complements and delivers on these priorities.

I have with me today Mr. Fred Koe, the deputy minister of aboriginal affairs, and Mr. Peter Bannon, the director of policy and co-ordination for the ministry of aboriginal affairs.

• 1015

I have provided a map of the western boundaries; I think you all have it. It shows the different regions in the western Arctic and the different treaties and the different land claim areas that have been settled. This is for your information so you have a view of what we're dealing with.

I also have a couple of documents: minerals, and oil and gas news from the Northwest Territories; an exploration overview for 1996 for the Northwest Territories; mining exploration and geological investigations, which illustrate the high level of mineral activity in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chairman, I have a formal presentation from the Government of the Northwest Territories, a submission to this Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Bill C-6.

There are exciting economic opportunities for the Northwest Territories, many of which are based in the Mackenzie Valley. The mining and oil and gas sectors are already well established. We will soon be the first diamond producers in Canada, and there is increasing interest in oil and gas. However, it has always been the policy of the Government of the Northwest Territories that economic development must occur in a socially and environmentally sound manner while respecting agreements with aboriginal peoples.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act will establish a co-ordinated system of resource management to regulate the use of land and water in the area. The act provides northerners with a significantly increased role in the regulation of land and water use. The act also fulfils obligations of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu comprehensive land claim agreements.

Consequently, the Government of the Northwest Territories supports the proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. This does not mean the government is satisfied with each and every clause. We have some concerns, but we accept that resource management is often an optimization of many differing interests, values, and needs. The essence of decision-making related to resource management is a balance of interests. The design of the regulatory regime, indeed the development of the legislation itself, is the product of balance and agreement on many different interests.

The proposed change is an improvement over the existing regulatory regime, and it successfully incorporates many of the aspirations and needs of first nations through public government institutions. Obligations of the land claims agreements are met and many long-standing objections of aboriginal people related to the approval process for land and water use are also addressed.

Enhanced co-ordination through this new regulatory regime will simplify the decision-making process for approval of development proposals, thereby creating greater certainty and clarity for industry wishing to invest in the north. Consequently, passage of this act will serve to enhance economic development, ensure sustainable development of our natural resources, and contribute to our goal of self-sufficiency and self-determination.

A particularly appealing attribute of the proposed regulatory regime is the partnership it creates for aboriginal, community, territorial, and federal governments, as well as the public at large. Each has significant roles to play and contributes to the overall decision-making related to the use of natural resources of the Mackenzie Valley.

The design of the regulatory scheme has a long history. It is not something that suddenly appeared in 1992 in the Gwich'in comprehensive land claims agreement. The design goes back to the 1980s when government and the Dene and the Métis of the entire Mackenzie Valley worked together to design a system that was more responsive to the needs of the Dene and Métis.

• 1020

There were several compromises and trade-offs made on the part of all parties to secure an agreement on the guaranteed rights of participation in resource management decisions through the institutions of public government. The regime would apply to all lands and waters in all of the Mackenzie Valley, not merely those settlement lands to which the Dene and Métis held title.

The design, along with a commitment from the Government of Canada to implement the new system, became part of the 1990 agreement in principle for the Dene-Métis comprehensive land claims agreement for the Mackenzie Valley, which was not ratified.

An innovative approach was pursued because, generally speaking, reserves have not been established in the Northwest Territories. Communities have been, and continue to be, comprised of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents. After the failure of this 1990 Dene-Métis agreement in principle, the Government of Canada, with the strong support of the Government of the Northwest Territories, agreed to pursue the settlement of outstanding land claims in the Mackenzie Valley on a regional basis.

A condition of this approach was that the 1990 agreement in principle, including the provisions related to the regulation of land and water use, would form the basis for negotiations. Within this framework, the Gwich'in comprehensive land claims agreement, and subsequently the Sahtu agreement, include modifications that improve regional participation in decision-making.

As I mentioned, the development of Bill C-6 is also a product of balance of interests. The fact that the legislative development process took almost five years is a clear indication of this. While the response to consultation efforts over the past several years was not as ideal as what one would hope for, the Government of the Northwest Territories is satisfied that the concerns expressed were reviewed and incorporated to the extent possible.

Natural resources are an integral part of the economy and the cultural and social fabric of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal society of the NWT. Much of the northern economy is based on harvesting and extracting natural resources. Renewable resources contribute significantly to the northern economy by providing: food; raw materials for clothing, crafts, and shelter; and recreational opportunities, particularly in the smaller communities.

The extraction of non-renewable resources through mining and petroleum development, however, is the principal source of economic wealth and employment for the NWT. Ensuring that northern residents have meaningful opportunities to participate in both the wage and subsistence economies requires that the development of natural resources occurs in a sustainable manner that acknowledges the needs and aspiration of northern residents.

With the growing northern population and growing rates of unemployment, demands to increase the level of non-renewable resource activity and to commercialize the use of renewable resources continue to put pressure on our northern environment. The benefits that can be gained through the development of our natural resources must be weighed against long-term impacts these developments have on the environment and the sustainability of these resources.

This is particularly true in the Mackenzie Valley, where the impacts from even small-scale, local developments can have significant and cumulative effects throughout the Mackenzie River watershed. Mechanisms for regulating development that are established to protect the environment, however, must not be so complex and cumbersome that they discourage individuals and companies from pursuing resource development projects.

The current process and rules for doing business must be simplified, clarified, and applied consistently. Unsettled land claims and the creation of two territories in the north have created uncertainty and caution among investors and consumers.

A co-ordinated regulatory regime can provide the certainty of process and the consistency of decision-making that is required to maintain a level of investment in developing those resources. A co-ordinated regulatory regime can also provide the means to continue to apply the high standards of environmental protection demanded by the residents of the Mackenzie Valley and the Northwest Territories.

• 1025

The application of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to the entire Mackenzie Valley has considerable merit. There have been calls for the reform of the regulatory system from the public for many years. Last month the Dene from a community near Yellowknife peacefully protested the current regulatory regime and how it's not responsive to their needs. Most people want change.

The concerns raised by aboriginal nations in areas of the valley without settled land claims are centred around the potentially prejudicial nature of the new regime to the settlement of their land claims.

The opposite may be more likely if the application of the legislation to the entire Mackenzie Valley is rejected on the basis that claimant groups want to seek a fundamentally different land and water use regulatory system throughout their land claim or self-government negotiations.

Then current negotiations will likely undergo significant delays while the federal government analyses any new proposals that may be forthcoming and reviews them in conjunction with its existing negotiating mandate. This could take a year, and likely more, which would seriously jeopardize any possibility of the negotiation of the final agreement within the terms of this government.

In the end, a review of the federal mandate does not provide any guarantees of significant change to that mandate. The public interest and the multitude of other interests, such as resource users and developers and environmental and conservation groups, will ultimately still need to be factored in.

It is important to note that the Gwich'in and the Sahtu nations did secure significant modifications in their land claim settlements to meet their needs. It is also our understanding that further modifications are under consideration at the Dogrib land claims and self-government negotiations, which are currently under way. The proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act acknowledges that future land claims and self-government agreements may result in changes or modifications. It clearly accepts—indeed it anticipates—that the legislation will have to be amended to accommodate these changes.

Comprehensive land claims agreements are paramount to other legislation. Consequently, this paramountcy is a further guarantee that land claims agreements will prevail if any inconsistencies between the land claims agreement and legislation exist.

The vision of the Government of the Northwest Territories is to have two politically and economically viable units within Canada after the creation of the two new territories in 1999. For the west, further fragmentation at the political and administrative levels will undermine this goal.

Bill C-6 provides the balance between participation and decision-making at the regional and community levels and the need for co-ordination and consistency for the entire Mackenzie Valley.

Concerns related to the complexity and capacity of the proposed systems have been raised. Any regulatory regime associated with resource management is complex. Again, as I stated earlier, decision-making related to resource management is inherently difficult because of the many interests and stakeholders involved. Sound decisions cannot be made without adequate participation of the public and interest groups.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is encouraged by and supports the mining industry's interest for an efficient and effective regulatory system. The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act initially appears complex; however, the existing regulatory system is more complex and outdated. The existing system has its foundation in the early 1970s and there have been few significant changes since then.

There are several statutes, regulations, and conventions that now form the regulatory framework that Bill C-6 attempts to capture in one statute. The current number of bureaucrats and existing board members most certainly outnumber those proposed for the new regime. Bill C-6 creates a much more transparent regime, and this transparency should not be taken for a more complex regulatory system.

In an effort to minimize the impact of change, the bill seems to have satisfactorily retained, to the extent possible, many of the more familiar components of the old regime, namely, land-use permits and water licences, and conventional approaches to environmental assessment.

• 1030

Areas of improvement in addition to increased public participation include more co-ordination and integration of the regulatory processes and reduced duplication. Notable also is the one-window entry point for land and water use approvals and the environmental assessment. In the end this system should lead to more effective and efficient decision-making processes.

During the consultation period concerns were expressed related to the capacity of the boards and staff to make decisions in a timely manner and with adequate technical analysis and advice. Any new regulatory system, especially one as comprehensive as the one proposed in this Bill C-6, will have start-up problems. In an attempt to mitigate start-up problems, working groups have been established for most of the future boards. These working groups have been hiring staff, familiarizing themselves with their duties, developing procedures, and communicating with the public. Some working groups are more advanced than others in their preparation. Both levels of government have been working closely with the boards and will continue to do so.

Some concern on the part of the public and resource developers over the readiness of the boards to effectively assume their duties and responsibilities has been expressed. The standing committee should consider providing a greater degree of flexibility with the coming-into-force provision of the bill.

On a cautionary note, we would strongly recommend that the land and water boards, or at the very least the Mackenzie Valley land and water board in part IV of the bill, and the environmental impact review board in part V need to be established together. Otherwise, the bill will require significant amendments. Of greater concern, the regulatory system will initially be a patchwork of the old and the new. Over time, fragmentation will become entrenched and the regulatory system will indeed be complex and confusing with a high risk of little consistency or certainty of process for the Mackenzie Valley.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is sensitive to the concerns raised during consultation, especially in relation to the areas with unsettled land claims. There are some concerns over the fair representation on the valley-wide boards established by parts IV and V of the bill. A large degree of flexibility already exists, but perhaps this is an area that could be revisited in the bill to determine if more flexibility can be provided without disturbing the overall balance of regional representation throughout the valley. It should be kept in mind that these provisions would be an interim measure until remaining land claims and self-government agreements are concluded.

Consultation also resulted in suggested improvements to the transitional clauses. The recognition and protection of existing rights and interests in land, and assurance that unnecessary duplication of environmental screening assessment and review will not occur, are two important matters that may require further attention.

Clauses 151 and 152 should also reference the permits, rights, and interests issued or granted pursuant to the Commissioner's Land Act. Clause 152 should contain a grandfathering provision that is indefinite as long as the purpose of the activity is not changed.

In the transitional provisions related to the environmental assessment and review process, the recognition of the unique situation of mines and other activities, some of which have been operating for decades, may also be necessary. This could be achieved through grandfathering existing operations unless changes to the operation occur, or limiting the scope of the environmental assessment process to the changed components of the operation. Otherwise, many of the larger operations will need to close while environmental assessments are undertaken.

In conclusion, the economy of the Northwest Territories is dependant on natural resources. The certainty and co-ordination of the regulatory regime for the use of land and water that will be provided by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act will not only enhance economic development but it will also ensure that economic development occurs in a socially and environmentally sound manner.

• 1035

The Government of the Northwest Territories, as a signatory to the Gwich'in and Sahtu comprehensive land claims agreements, is committed to meeting those obligations. Bill C-6 is a product of those commitments. As a party to ongoing and future land claims, treaty entitlement, and self-government negotiations, this government is committed to the fair settlement of claims and the implementation of aboriginal and treaty rights.

A long-standing goal of the Government of the Northwest Territories has been the full transfer of the powers, programs, and responsibilities related to the northern land and resources to the north. We have been unsuccessful for several reasons, but the desire to control our future has not diminished.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is encouraged that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a progressive step in the political development of the Northwest Territories. Building partnerships and placing more decision-making in the hands of northerners are undeniably benefits of this bill.

For those reasons, the Government of the Northwest Territories supports Bill C-6.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your statement which will help us in our present and future deliberations. I want to underline that the Members of the Committee and myself were very pleased to receive the map you have prepared about Treaties 8 and 11. It is the best map we have received so far and we want to thank you.

We will now start the question period with Mr. Konrad, for five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): I'd like to thank you, Minister, for your presentation. I wonder if we can have a copy of your opening statements for the members of the committee. I found them really interesting and informative.

As a land surveyor I really appreciate your map here. I was involved in the production of those types of things before I got elected. That's a big deal to me.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I apologize for this delay, Mr. Minister Antoine, for which I am fully responsible. I have asked for photocopies of your statement and we will receive them very soon. I apologize.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It's not a problem. I wouldn't have had time to read them anyway. I really appreciated your remarks.

I have one question that arose from your comments. You were looking for more flexibility in the implementation of the bill and in some of the areas, yet one of the things you said previously is that there needs to be certainty for the development community, those people who are affected by the regulations.

My personal feeling is if I don't know what the rules are, and the rules are so flexible that I can't determine what's happening, I would be reluctant to enter into any development. Can you just clarify that for me?

Mr. Jim Antoine: Because of the areas in the Mackenzie Valley where there are outstanding land claims— If you look at the map, the areas that have been settled are in the northern part; for example, the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, and the Sahtu. The remaining southern areas haven't been settled yet.

There are negotiations under way right now. There is a need to be flexible in the bill to allow these regions to conclude their negotiations. Our view is that we've been flexible during all the processes we're involved with to allow the participants in these regions to participate in the development of any type of regimes or any type of regulations that are going to be with them forever into the future. We see this flexibility as being quite useful.

• 1040

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So your understanding is that the areas that have not yet settled would be governed by the old acts that Bill C-6 is meant to replace? Or would they be subject to Bill C-6 with variations for local concerns, or what? I'm still not quite clear.

Mr. Jim Antoine: Our position is to support this new bill, so that would do away with the old regime, and that this new bill, its provisions, will have the provisions for regulating water and land usage in all of the Northwest Territories, including those that are unsettled. But as I said before, we have to find a flexible way to allow very comprehensive claims in that area.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Do I still have time?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

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

Thanks for your presentation. It was very informative. I have a couple of very quick questions, and I have asked this question to the other people who have presented their views at the table there.

Do you feel the jurisdictions, especially over water flow between the areas listed, are clear enough? For instance, with water that originates in one area but flows into another, or originates in that area and flows into the other, is there confusing jurisdiction over who's in charge of the downstream end of it? There is a lot of downstream water, beyond what flows into the Mackenzie River Valley, just from one area to another.

Mr. Jim Antoine: The Northwest Territories, as we all know if we look at the map, gets the watershed from just about the western half of the country. Personally, I originate from the Fort Simpson area along the Mackenzie River, so the quality of water that flows by is a very big concern to the people I represent in the legislative assembly.

There is co-ordination between other jurisdictions now, and there needs to be better co-ordination than we have had in the past. This is something new that has happened within the last few years. We have to make sure that the mechanism that's developed takes care of our environment.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understand that, but I guess I was being more specific. Between land claim areas, will this bill be able to act as an umbrella to settle disputes and complications that may arise from water that derives in one settlement area and flows into another?

Mr. Jim Antoine: Mr. Chairman, perhaps to get more clarification I'll ask my director of policy to answer that.

Mr. Peter Bannon (Director, Policy and Co-ordination, Ministry of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, Government of the Northwest Territories): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, the act does address co-ordination between the surrounding land claim areas or adjacent land claim areas. It also even produces an opportunity to have joint environmental assessments with the province of Alberta. The short answer is yes, it adequately addresses it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That was exactly the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

I have one other quick question, and it's in regard to grandfathering, because there seems to be a fair amount of concern over the grandfathering, or perhaps the lack of it. The suggestions you are making in changes to clause 152—are you satisfied that would be enough, or should there be a separate description of grandfathering in the act, more specific than what's there now?

• 1045

Mr. Jim Antoine: We are aware that some amendments have been suggested. We're not familiar with those amendments that have been put forward. Perhaps Mr. Bannon is more hands-on than I am, and maybe he could clarify that.

Mr. Peter Bannon: We have discussed the amendments in the co-ordinating group that was a joint group between the two governments and the first nations. We came to the conclusion that yes, these amendments were required. We just haven't seen the final wording on it, but in principle we do support the amendments as were tabled earlier.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You alluded in your remarks—I didn't quite get it—to responsibilities of the boards. That has been a subject of some discussion here from previous witnesses. I wonder, have you any thoughts about part II, and actually broadly defining the responsibilities of the boards in part II, as opposed to doing it piecemeal, section by section?

I'm new to this whole issue, but what I'm driving at, just to explain a little bit better, is that one of the things I noted in looking at part II is that the responsibilities of all boards are not generally defined. I wondered if you had any thoughts on that. Is that something we should be considering doing?

Mr. Jim Antoine: Thank you. The department has been doing some work in that regard, and I'm going to ask Mr. Bannon to explain the work they have been doing in this area.

Mr. Peter Bannon: Thank you. The provisions related to describing the responsibilities of the board or the principles or objectives of the various boards are in each of the individual sections because the boards are each different. They have a different purpose—land use planning, land and water regulation, and environmental assessment. The principles or objectives that drive them are different, so they were included in the individual sections. To suggest that they might go into the foreword or the first part of the bill might make it a very long and complicated list of principles and objectives if you wanted to address all the boards together at once.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may suggest, then—we were again discussing that issue, and we were looking at clause 35, which is a description of the guiding principles of the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board. One of the things that struck me, at any rate, was that paragraphs (a) and (b) could be easily reworded as general principles that would surely apply to all boards, because they say the right things:

(a) 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 particularly liked the reference to “having regard to the interests of all Canadians”, because I was struck by the fact that in any of these self-government agreements— and as a matter of fact any residents of the Territories or the Yukon do have obviously a great interest in protecting the regions for the benefit of all Canadians. I thought the bill was a little deficient and didn't express up front, shall we say, the guiding principles, the noble intentions, of what we're doing here.

I come back to my point. Is there really any reason why one cannot generally say in part II that the purpose of these boards—all of them—is to serve the interests of the communities and their areas and the well-being of the residents, and to look after the environment, just as we have in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 35? Why can't we do that?

Mr. Jim Antoine: Again, I'll ask Mr. Bannon to respond.

• 1050

Mr. Peter Bannon: If you were able to come up with a general one that would adequately address all of the boards, perhaps another clause could go into the “whereas” part, but we don't have one to suggest right now. It would take some—

Mr. John Bryden: Do you think you would be amenable to doing something like that? I really am nervous with legislation like this that creates boards and then doesn't define right up front what their specific general responsibilities are in principle. Even parliamentarians know what the heck they're supposed to be doing in principle.

Mr. Peter Bannon: One of the reasons that we agreed that the principles and the objectives should be included with each board is so you could be specific and you could give a clear picture of what was expected of them.

If you were to put a clause in the beginning, it would be more general and probably wouldn't add a lot of clarity other than a high level purpose.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I am sorry. Mr. Konrad, please.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: You mentioned that Bill C-6 should go ahead despite objections by the south Mackenzie land claim region. I notice you're from the Deh Cho region yourself, which means your people are generally in opposition to what you said with respect to that.

You say that this opposition really needs to be set aside in the interest of getting on with the task. How do you feel personally about the fragmentation there and the overriding of the different regions within the entire area?

Mr. Jim Antoine: It's a Government of the Northwest Territories position that I'm putting forward here. As a member of that government I'm tasked with providing this information to members of this committee in a factual manner. There are political realities I have to deal with in my own constituency, but sometimes as a public representative you have to take a position.

My view is that we are a party to this particular bill as a government. We are signatories to the land claims agreement of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu, so we're obligated to move this arrangement forward. The bill itself provides more clarity and more hands-on by people in the north.

Earlier in my speech I mentioned that there was one community close to Yellowknife and the Fort Providence area that was not satisfied with the old regime, with the way the land use permit was issued to an exploration company. So they went out on the land where the site is and as a result the exploration company had to back off.

Because the old regime is so old and outdated, it doesn't allow for bands— this particular band is in the Deh Cho area and it was not satisfied with the old regime. As a result of that, with more consultation and more explanation of this bill and by providing the flexibility that is required in this bill, I believe it will allow other first nations or regions in the Northwest Territories, such as the Deh Cho, to be more comfortable with this bill. They will know they're going to have some input into anything that goes on on their own land.

• 1055

You ask me how I feel about it. I find myself in a tough political situation in this regard. I feel that this federal government put this forward, and as the GNWT we are obligated to support it. I was trying to give you as many facts and figures as I could so that you have a good basis to make good decisions here as a committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Keddy, please.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate those comments you just made. There are sometimes very difficult decisions to be made. The thing that I personally see that should be a benefit to the GNWT and also to the land claim settlement areas is that this bill is about the devolution of power from the federal government to the GNWT. Everyone's looking for this at the end of the day so we can accomplish that, and it should all set a little easier.

Mr. Jim Antoine: I said in my statement that the long view of GNWT has been to seek a full devolution of powers, programs, and responsibilities. We feel that delegation is an interim step, but it does not meet the needs of the GNWT to have full management and control of our northern resources. This should rest with the northern governments to truly benefit us in the north.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Finlay.

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

Mr. Antoine, I've appreciated hearing your statement and your comments. I have a copy of it here now and I want to explore your last paragraph on page 3. You talked about the economy being based largely on the extraction of natural resources. Of course, you mentioned that those that provided subsistence were renewable and those that were at the basis of the wage economy, or most of it, the development, were non-renewable oil and gas.

When we look at some of our problems across the north the ones that deal with— for instance, I'm going back to the Second World War and the DEW line and so on.

When I visited Cambridge Bay I was told that every road out of Cambridge Bay ended in a dump. I'm afraid every road out of many of our northern communities ends in a dump. There's a big one at Iqaluit, left by the Americans and thinly covered by soil right along the banks of the river. It's the worst place to have a dump but the easiest place to have a dump.

I don't want to be short-sighted, because perhaps there's oil and gas there for 50 years, 100 years, 200 years. I don't know, not being a geologist.

One of your concerns would be that the resources that form the basis of industrial development and wage economy are not renewable. You talk about sustainable development, which is very important in that part of the world. We know it's a fragile ecosystem. You're talking about this balance here.

It seems to me the rules perhaps need to be different. Perhaps they need to be more stringent for mining, oil and gas, and so on in the Northwest Territories so that when those resources are no longer there, your people, our people in the north, can still exist, subsist, live on the land they want to live on.

• 1100

Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. Jim Antoine: Thank you, Mr. Finlay. Those are pretty good comments.

The western part of the Northwest Territories is what we're dealing with here, the Mackenzie Valley. This act would provide land use boards in the valley. People right from that area will be appointed to the boards, and where there's a land claims area the representative of the first nations will also be on the board, so they'll have a say in any type of development that goes on in their area.

There is a balance there. There is oil and gas in the Northwest Territories. We just started to develop these in the southern part of the Northwest Territories, and there are interests around Norman Wells again. There are also mining interests in that area as well. There has to be a co-ordination of these developments with the people who are living in that area.

So it is a big interest for us. As we look to the future of the Northwest Territories, this is a new area. In order to develop our area or develop our human resources, we need to start looking at developing the resources we have. That will eventually provide employment and generate our economy, but we have to do it in a way in which we have control of it, we have involvement in the decision-making. This is what we feel this bill is going to provide us with.

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

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay. Thank you, Mr. Minister. We will have a final round before starting the videoconference with Yellowknife. I will give the floor to Mr. Konrad, Mr. Bachand, Mr. Keddy, Mrs. Longfield and Mr. Patry.

Mr. Konrad, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one quick question here.

Clause 8 talks about requiring the federal minister to consult with Gwich'in and Sahtu First Nations with respect to an amendment of the act. The bill doesn't require any consultation with the territorial government, which is the only place where non-aboriginals may have a voice on this matter. As your map shows, the bill affects the entire Mackenzie Valley. Are you concerned that, in the way it's structured, it's the federal government and the first nations leadership, while the territorial government is bypassed? Do you have any recommendations for the committee in that regard?

Mr. Jim Antoine: I believe that's a provision according to the land claims agreement with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. I feel the GNWT will be consulted on any amendment.

That's all I can say on it right now, but perhaps I'll ask Mr. Bannon to provide more information. He's been involved for a long time with the whole claims process.

Mr. Peter Bannon: It's been a longstanding practice that the federal government does consult the Government of the Northwest Territories on new legislation or amendments to legislation. We're satisfied that we'll continue to be consulted.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to our guests and to the Minister for my absence at the beginning of the meeting. I had been asked go to the House for a matter of procedure. Unfortunately, I cannot yet be in two places at the same time. I regret not having heard your statement but, since I have had time to read your brief, I would like to ask your opinion on a few points.

• 1105

Our concern is that, because of an agreement with the Sahtu and the Gwich'in, some people may have the feeling that the bill will apply to the whole of the Mackenzie Valley. Some native groups seem to say that passing this legislation is clearly premature since all the land claims have not yet been resolved.

In your brief, you say:

[English]

The proposed Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act acknowledges that future land claims and self government agreements may result in changes or modifications and clearly accepts, indeed anticipates, that the legislation will have to be amended to accommodate these changes. Comprehensive land claims agreements are paramount to other legislation; consequently, this paramountcy is a further guarantee that land claims agreement will prevail if any inconsistencies between the land claims agreements and legislation exist.

[Translation]

Could you tell me where in Bill C-6 is the provision that, if some land claims that are not in agreement with the bill are negotiated with other communities, there will be some recourse and we would have to review and amend the legislation on the basis of those new land claim agreements, whether they be with the Dogrib, the Deh Cho, the Dene or the Metis?

[English]

Mr. Jim Antoine: In Bill C-6, I think it's in the preamble that the third “whereas” is:

WHEREAS the intent of the Agreements as acknowledged by the parties is to establish those boards for the purpose of regulating— land and water uses

Sorry, it's the next one down:

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

Also, in the act itself, subclause 5(1), there's a section that deals with that:

5.(1) Where there is any inconsistency or conflict between this Act and a land claim agreement, an Act giving effect to a land claim agreement or the Indian Act, the agreement, the Act or the Indian Act prevails over this Act to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.

I think these are two areas where we see it fitting into this bill.

[Translation]

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

Mrs. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you.

One of the things I was very interested in was when I heard you talking about the review board. Currently we provide for a maximum of 11. One of the things the Dogrib indicated when they were here—in fact, they gave us a list of proposed amendments from their perspective—was that we increase the size of the board.

In your presentation you said you thought perhaps in the interim, before land claims were settled from the south, that there might be some flexibility there. Do you have any suggestions for us on how that board might be extended in the interim period?

Mr. Jim Antoine: I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Bannon. He has some technical material.

• 1110

Mr. Peter Bannon: Having been involved with this bill for so long I would say that generally we are satisfied with the way the provisions are stated, but we are sensitive, as a result of recent consultation, that there is some concern about fair representation.

We don't have any specific wording, but one approach that could be taken is rather than dealing with a maximum number you might deal with a minimum number.

Ms. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

I appreciate the time constraints and I will limit my questioning to just that one.

The Chairman: A short question, Mr. Bryden, followed by Dr. Patry, because we are waiting for our witnesses in Yellowknife.

Mr. John Bryden: To follow up on my earlier question, there is a point where politicians have to talk to one another. I asked an earlier question about a general clause pertaining to responsibilities of boards. Mr. Bannon answered it, but I would prefer Mr. Antoine to answer it because it is a political question, not a legal question.

Let me rephrase it. At this stage do you see any objection to putting a clause in part II to define the responsibilities of the board, which was basically a paraphrase of what is already in paragraph 35(a)?

Let me read how I see it appearing:

the purpose of these boards 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.

Why can't that be a general principle that you as a politician of the Northwest Territories would endorse for legislation like this? Isn't that what we're doing?

Mr. Jim Antoine: First, there are some land claims agreements already out there, and we are a signatory to them so we have to respect what is in their claims and the provisions that deal with this act.

We don't have any objection to it in principle, but we need to see it—

Mr. John Bryden: I wouldn't commit you absolutely to anything, but as one politician to another it seems like mom and apple pie. You are protecting the communities and you are doing it for the benefit of all Canadians. What could be more clear?

Mr. Jim Antoine: Why don't you put it in the preamble?

Mr. John Bryden: Because the preamble, as your friend must know, doesn't have the force of enactment. The preamble is merely, as they say in legal circles, a pious hope clause. If you put it in the actual body, then it has the force of law. You can check with your colleague later, but preambles don't mean much at all.

Mr. Jim Antoine: As I said earlier, we'd like to see it and see how it's applied and how it affects the land claims we are part of already. We'll see if there's any—

Mr. John Bryden: It comes from a land claim, actually.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Patry.

[English]

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

I have a question for the minister about subclause 5(2). That clause provides that:

nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In the view of the Government of the Northwest Territories, would subclause 5(2) ensure that nothing in the act will compromise any existing aboriginal and treaty rights, or has this non-derogation clause alleviated the concern of the Mackenzie Valley First Nations?

Mr. Jim Antoine: Are you asking about the non-derogation clause?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

Mr. Jim Antoine: It relates to the aboriginal treaty rights. It has always been difficult to craft from a legal standpoint and at the same time meet the expectations of aboriginal nations.

Our understanding is that this is the most current version and reflects the current laws and policies. I think it's been a position of our government that we have a non-derogation clause in there so that it doesn't prejudice any outstanding treaty and aboriginal rights.

• 1115

Perhaps I missed your question, but I think that's—

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. A final question, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: With the help of our Research Assistant, I have realized that I should pursue my previous topic.

I agree with Mr. Bryden that preambles are always very interesting but that it is the clauses of bill that are really important.

Referring to Clause 5(1), you stated that, if there is any contradiction between the land claim agreements and the bill, the agreements would probably be paramount.

Clause 5(1) refers to the provisions of the agreements, whereas Clause 2 states that only the Gwich'in or the Sahtu agreements are to be taken into account.

As far as I am concerned, Clause 5(1) under its present form would not legally apply to all the future agreements. When they testified earlier this week, the Dogrib recommended that the definition of the land claim agreements include not only the Gwich'in and the Sahtu agreements but also any future agreements with other First Nations. Would that be possible? According to you, should we not change the definition in order to include any future land claim agreements?

[English]

Mr. Jim Antoine: I'll have to qualify my answer by saying that we weren't here when the Dogribs were here, so there may have been some discussion and information in their general presentation that we aren't privy to.

The negotiations are ongoing. They haven't been concluded, so we don't really know what will be in the final claim. It's difficult to put something in an act about something that still hasn't happened. We feel the only way to deal with that situation is to amend the act once the claim has been settled. I think that's the only mechanism we have available to us, and that's the position we're taking.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for having come to Ottawa to speak on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories and of your people. We are very grateful for your contribution. We wish you a safe trip home. Thank you very much. Do you have anything to add?

[English]

Mr. Jim Antoine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you and the committee members for listening to our presentation today. As I said earlier, our purpose is to try to give you as much factual, historical information as possible on the position of the government. I hope we were able to provide that information.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

[Translation]

We will immediately start our videoconference from Yellowknife with the representatives of the Sahtu Secretariat Inc., chaired by Mr. Tourangeau.

Mr. Tourangeau, please introduce your officials and make your statement, for which you will have about five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Larry Tourangeau (President, Sahtu Secretariat Inc.): I'm the chairman and president of the Sahtu Secretariat. With me is the chief of Fort Good Hope. He is also part of the team. There's just the two of us here this morning.

• 1120

Good morning to all of you over there. I know you have a busy day, so I'll try to be as brief as I can.

I forwarded a copy of our presentation. I believe you all have it. It was dated November 4.

The Chairman: Yes, I've received your copy.

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: The Sahtu Secretariat is the body established by the Sahtu Dene and Métis to implement the Sahtu land claim. Bill C-6 is an important step in fulfilling the obligations of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories under the comprehensive land claim agreement between Her Majesty the Queen and the Sahtu Dene and Métis. The agreement affirms, by legislation in 1994— It is a land claim settlement agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

The agreement requires the establishment of a land use planning board, a land and water board, and an environmental impact review board as institutions of public government, with an integrated and co-ordinated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley.

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act has been drafted over the past few years in consultation with the Sahtu Secretariat and the Gwich'in Tribal Council. I urge the committee to give favourable consideration to this legislation, which recognizes the direct involvement of communities in resource management, and it also provides environmental protection for the whole Mackenzie Valley.

The Sahtu Dene and Métis live in the Sahtu region of the NWT, which lies south of the delta and immediately north of the North Slave, what they call the Dogrib region. It is a large area of approximately 110,000 square miles that extends from the Yukon border in the west to Great Bear Lake in the east. The five communities in the region are Colville Lake, Fort Good Hope, Tulita, which used to be Fort Norman, Deline, which used to be Fort Franklin, and Norman Wells.

Under the land claims settlement the Sahtu Dene and Métis received title to approximately 16,000 square miles of land, of which 700,000 square miles includes the subsurface resources. Sahtu lands are owned by the Sahtu Dene and Métis collectively, but they are not reserves under the Indian Act.

Although this is a large region, the population is relatively small. Approximately 3,300 persons live in the region, and of these 2,300 are beneficiaries of the Sahtu land claim. The vast majority of the population of each Sahtu community, except Norman Wells, are beneficiaries. It is especially important for these communities to be actively involved with the systems of public government applicable to the region. The joint management boards established in the lands claims are a vital part of future development in this area.

In terms of land and water management, chapter 25 of the Sahtu agreement calls for the establishment of several boards. The land use planning board will prepare a land use plan for the whole region. The land use planning process has been endorsed by the communities of the region.

The establishment of the land use plan is a lengthy process involving wide consultations, particularly with respect to protection of the fragile areas in our region. The plan must be approved not only by the communities but by the Government of the Northwest Territories and eventually by the Government of Canada. Once the plan is approved, future development must conform to the land use prescribed in the plan. The plan will be a co-operative and consensus document arrived at with active participation of all interested parties.

• 1125

The agreement requires the establishment of a land and water board for the Sahtu region, to issue land use permits and water licence for all significant land and water uses, including uses on native lands. The board will replace the NWT Water Board with respect to water licences and the Indian Affairs staff who presently issue land use permits. The board will administer the Northwest Territories Water Act and land and water use permits.

I guess it's in this light that the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis support the passage of the bill. The adequate implementation of the land claims board is a matter of concern not only to industry but also to the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis. Board members must be qualified and trained, and the boards must be adequately resourced in order to operate effectively.

Board members and staff have already been identified and transition teams have been established. There is a great deal of enthusiasm about establishment of this new, integrated regulatory system, but its successful implementation requires government to ensure that sufficient resources are available to enable the boards to respond quickly and efficiently to land and water use applications.

There has been considerable interest in oil and gas development in the Sahtu region over the last two years, and in the future there's likely to be a pipeline construction in the region throughout the Mackenzie Valley. The Sahtu, Dene, and Métis are supportive of development provided that there is adequate environmental protection, and also provided that the local residents will benefit in terms of employment in the new economic activities that will take place. Unfortunately, unemployment continues to be a major problem in some of the native communities, so I urge the committee to give its full support to this important legislation.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tourangeau. Your statement will be very helpful for our future deliberations.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I want to thank you, Mr. Tourangeau, for your presentation and this letter supporting the act.

My first question is rather not so concerned with the act as it is with something in your letter. You state that there are approximately 3,300 people living in the area and that of those, 2,300 were native beneficiaries of the land claims settlement. The land claims settlement sets up these boards, and I understand that the members of the boards are to be nominated by 2,300 out of 3,300 residents. How do the other 1,000 people achieve any standing with this board or this committee?

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: I think it's very clear that with the non-beneficiaries, the majority of those people are there for the short term. They work up in Norman Wells and mainly have their homes in the south. They're nevertheless still represented by the Government of the Northwest Territories and also by the federal government.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: But the territorial government is representative of the people who are also of native background and is under no obligation to appoint any of those people either. It cannot appoint from any segment of the society it chooses.

I don't want to drive that point too far. I understand it, but I just simply wanted to see how you felt about it.

You talked about consultation having taken place in your community. The act doesn't require consultation. It's more permissive than required. Do you think that's a weakness in the act, or do you think every area will have the same success that you had in having people out to review the land planning?

• 1130

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: Right now, because of the lack of the passage of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Development Act, no land use planning board is in place. A shadow board will come into play in the new year because of the non-passage of this bill. From what we understand, this bill was supposed to have been passed two years after the settlement of the claim, which was in 1994. It should have been in place by 1996. We would have had these boards up and running, but because the bill wasn't passed it couldn't happen.

However—maybe I'm getting away from your question—in the Sahtu region we've had ongoing consultations at the community and regional levels so that people can be aware of what's happening and there can be no misunderstanding when we come to discuss a bill as important as this one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Messrs. Tourangeau and Konrad.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Good morning, Mr. Tourangeau. I have to tell you that you have a beautiful French name. Mr. Chairman, this may confirm that Quebeckers are great discoverers and adventurers.

The Chairman: I agree.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Alright, I have expressed my message.

Mr. Tourangeau, I would like to know if the Sahtu Dene and Metis have started any legal action against the federal Government because of what you just stated a few minutes ago, that is to say that the 1994 agreement stated that Bill C-6 would be implemented within two years, which was not done. Could you give us a few explanations about this and tell us if there has been any legal action? If so, what were your arguments and did you ask for damages?

My second question might be even more important. I know that the Sahtu people are very proud and that they would not appreciate being forced to accept anything. I will ask you, before answering my question, to put yourself in the shoes of the Dogrib or the Deh Cho. Would you accept that agreements negotiated with the Dogrib and the Deh Cho be applied to the Sahtu people before their own land claims were resolved? This seems to me to be the heart of the matter.

[English]

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: Those are very good questions. Actually my last name is Tourangeauski.

All joking aside, the answer to your first question is that there is no lawsuit at this time from the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis of the Sahtu region. I guess if we felt there was a need to go that route we have that avenue, but we haven't felt that need yet.

We're still working as closely as we can to ensure that this bill is passed so that we can have a little bit more control over the land on which we hunt, fish, trap, and do all those good things to support our people at the community level.

We still have some really traditional communities in our region. It's the only region you have to come into by plane. The only other transportation avenue to the Sahtu region is on a winter road in the wintertime—and that could last anywhere from a month to two months if you're lucky—and in the summertime by the river.

For the short answer there's no lawsuit.

• 1135

With respect to your second question about imposing issues upon us, we feel there is a real need to consult in a meaningful manner with our people in the region. So whenever anything is imposed upon us, like anybody else we react to it until there is proper consultation. People are not all that crazy about having somebody impose a bunch of rules on them when that person is not going to be living there five years from now.

I believe in the Sahtu region there is a need. We have settled our claim. This provision for the Dogribs and the other people, that when they do settle their claim they can deal with the issue at that time— I guess there is a provision in their agreement to do so.

Although we are two different regions, we, the Sahtu, and our brothers to the north, the Gwich'in and the Inuvialuit, are certainly in favour of the passage of this bill.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tourangeau.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Several questions were prepared by the committee and given out to all board members. There is one question specifically about subclause 26(5) which provides that:

The federal Minister may establish funding arrangements with each board specifying the manner in which funding will be made available pursuant to a budget approved by the federal Minister.

What are your views on concerns that have been expressed that the boards created by Bill C-6 would be too costly for the NWT taxpayers?

I'm mixing up nine and ten here, but that's the clause I want to ask about.

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: I haven't really paid a lot of attention to what the cost is going to be. I am not the real expert in that area. However, being the last frontier of our big country of Canada, we certainly want to make sure that you don't short-change yourself so that the environmental climate is unprotected. I would have to say in order to protect this last frontier money shouldn't be a real factor. I'm not the expert in this particular field, but that is how I feel.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't know if that is exactly what I was asking. You had mentioned the training in place for the immediate timeframe after implementation. Is it a GNWT responsibility, a federal responsibility, or a joint responsibility?

There is some discussion in the bill on who exactly is going to be paying for the boards after they have been implemented. I realize the federal government still has a responsibility, but there is also some responsibility to the Government of the Northwest Territories. Do you perceive problems in that area? You related to them directly in your discussion.

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: I think the federal government has always ensured that these boards are managed in a proper manner and they will continue to ensure it. The way for the federal government to do that is to ensure funding is available. I am not sure whether they are going to do it directly or whether they are going to try to go through— If they are going through the Government of the Northwest Territories, I would envision that is exactly what the money is to be used for and not necessarily to foster or create another bureaucracy.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Thank you, Mr. Tourangeau.

Ms. Longfield.

• 1140

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm fine, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, please.

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

Welcome.

I want to go back to a question I asked to our previous witness.

In your presentation with respect to Mackenzie Valley and the environmental impact and review board, you said the agreement provides for the establishment of a Mackenzie Valley environmental impact review board to carry out environmental assessment of projects throughout the Mackenzie Valley that are likely to have an impact on the environment and that such projects may be referred to the board for assessment in the course of the licensing process.

It strikes me that after all the hearings and all the effort that was put into the Berger inquiry on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline— and you mentioned in your presentation a pipeline would be necessary in the development perhaps of the oil and gas wells. You also mentioned the timeliness of these developments.

I'm a little concerned when it says “are likely”. It seems to me that most developments of any size in Mackenzie Valley are likely to have an impact on the environment.

I would think we would want to be sure that those developments we provide for and how we deal with them take some cognizance of the timelessness of the lifestyle and of the vision you have for the future of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: I guess that was all part of the question.

Mr. John Finlay: Would you comment on that and your vision with respect to the wording, please. I find the wording just a little iffy.

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: I guess you could say it could be iffy. Certainly any project in the Sahtu region at this time always would have an impact on the environment, and I guess at this particular time these projects still have to go through an environmental process to meet the old standards that are in place until this new regime kicks in.

In our region we don't have a problem with the development that's going on now with the oil and gas. They're adhering to the standards that were put forth by government and set forth with the beneficiaries of the Sahtu claim, and they've been consulting with us. As a result we don't have any real problems. Any real problems we have are usually dealt with at the time.

I don't know if I've answered your question quite the way you wanted me to.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Tourangeau, let me ask you specifically then.

A couple of years back, when the environment committee visited Yellowknife, the Inuit associations and organizations were not happy with the way certain co-management regimes had worked out. There were some problems with mines that were polluting the water in the lake and around Yellowknife.

• 1145

You just used the term “old standards” or “government standards”. Are you saying that the old standards and government standards were adequate? I got the distinct impression from some of the people with whom we talked that they didn't feel they were adequate, nor had enough stringency been used in the regulations that were developed.

We're looking at a new act, Bill C-6, which purports to give adequate consultation with the Government of the Northwest Territories, the land claims people, and the indigenous people of the area.

So that's why I asked about the wording, which is likely to have an impact and which may be referred. My suggestion is that they should be referred, and they must meet certain standards we've talked about.

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: I agree with what you just said. When I talk about the old standards that are being met today, those are the standards. Whether they are up to snuff or not, those are in place in the interim before this bill is passed.

Right now those guidelines are being met by industry. That's basically what I said. Whether they're adequate or not, that's the standard in place at the moment. So as a result, yes, there's room for improvement.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tourangeau.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I understand you have an aboriginal group in the Sahtu land settlement area called the Deline and they have something called the Deline Land Corporation.

I would like to know how many people are living in that community. I understand they're involved in self-government negotiations and they're concerned that Bill C-6 will affect their negotiations. They're also concerned about their representation on the boards to be established.

What would you say to the Deline with respect to this bill?

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: My Deline brothers are in the room with us here. I guess they're going to be making a presentation to you.

Deline have some natural concerns. First, they're situated on one of the best fishing lakes in the world, called Great Bear Lake. I guess when you talk about water, it concerns them. As a result, the community is at present negotiating self-government. They are interested in seeing how that has a bearing on their negotiations.

At the moment Deline is a community of about 700 people. I would have to say that 95% of those people are beneficiaries of the Sahtu claim.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, please.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Would the Sahtu First Nations be opposed to this bill applying only to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu, who are the only ones to have signed any land claim agreements, or do you think that the bill should apply to the whole of the Mackenzie region, including all the groups who have not yet ratified a land claim agreement?

• 1150

[English]

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: I think there comes a time when decisions have to made. Certainly we're the end products of the riparian rights, being on the tail end of the Mackenzie River. Those things affect us tremendously.

We don't know when these other claims further to the south are going to be resolved and completed. It could take 10 years, it could take 20 years, and in the interim, what do we do? Do we wait until everybody has a negotiated claim, or do we start protecting our lands and our waters?

I think we have to say, yes, we have to get on with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I need some clarification. I am not asking you to wait ten years until some land claim agreements are ratified, but I seem to understand that you would not be pleased if Bill C-6 were to apply only to the Sahtu and the Gwich'in. Is your position based on geographical reasons, that is to say because water flows from the South to the North and that you are located at the end?

[English]

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: No, it's not our argument. Our argument is that we believe we have finalized an agreement with the Government of Canada. Part of the agreement is to have the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in place within two years and to have our land use planning boards and our land and water boards in place. We can't put those boards in place until this bill is passed.

As a result, it makes good sense for us, as representatives of our people, to ensure that those lands and waters are protected.

[Translation]

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

A final question, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I have a very quick question. As I understand it, the main office of the board is to be located in the settlement area. Where would that be in the case of the Sahtu? Where would the board be meeting?

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: Right now I don't know. My presentation has a map in the back that refers to the Sahtu claim area. Fort Good Hope has been selected as the place for the land and water board and the land use planning board.

The chief from Fort Good Hope is here with me.

One of the reasons we've put the board in the communities is so they could start building up their infrastructure. Right now a lot of these communities are at a point where there is not too much work and there is not a lot of activity. This is just one way of bringing these communities up to a level so they can benefit not only from the claim they've negotiated, but from the infrastructure—two office complexes—being built there.

Mr. John Bryden: Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Bryden.

[Translation]

Mr. Tourangeau, all the questions have been addressed to you. Would Grand Chief Yakeleya want to make a statement, since he had to travel to Yellowknife?

[English]

Grand Chief, do you have a statement?

Mr. Larry Tourangeau: First, I just want to say that Grand Chief Yakeleya couldn't make it. He got stuck in Fort Norman, and the chief from Fort Good Hope came in his place.

I'm sorry if I didn't mention it right off the bat. I apologize. The chief from Fort Good Hope is quite versed on these issues and he may want to say a couple of words.

The Chairman: Please, Grand Chief, go ahead.

• 1155

Chief Everett Kakfwi (Fort Good Hope): With regard to the hearings, I think we should have had them in the north where a lot of the development impacts will be. The concerns of the people should have been heard. But that's as much as I would like to say.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Grand Chief, we tried to make reservations in order to go and meet with you in the North but we could not find any accommodation. We will try again in a few months in order to meet you in your community.

We thank you for your statement and for your candour.

We will now give the floor to the representatives of the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce, Mrs. Julia Mott, Co- Chair of the Government Affairs Committee, and Mr. Bob Brooks, Executive Director. Good morning, Mrs. Mott.

[English]

Ms. Julia Mott (Co-Chair, Government Affairs Committee, Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce): Good morning.

The Chairman: Do you have a statement?

Ms. Julia Mott: My name is Julia Mott. Mr. Bob Brooks, the executive director of the NWT chamber, is with me. We have a short presentation to give to you. I believe it was sent over to you yesterday. I hope you have copies.

I'll read our presentation to you, and then if anybody has questions, we'd be very happy to answer them.

The Chairman: Yes, I received everything.

Ms. Julia Mott: Okay.

The Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce is delighted to be able to make this presentation to you today. The NWT chamber represents all chambers of commerce in the Northwest Territories, in both the east and west, from Inuvik to Iqaluit.

Our membership is reflective of many types of businesses and northern industry: mining, communication, tourism, construction, business services, and technology, to name a few. The NWT Chamber of Commerce mission statement reads:

To foster development, in an environmentally responsible manner, as the basis of economic and social progress in the Northwest Territories. To serve as a conduit for professional business relations between our members and the business sector in general and territorial and federal governments.

It's from this perspective that we speak with you today.

The NWT Chamber of Commerce will be making three main points. First, we are in full support of a speedy conclusion to aboriginal land claims settlements. Second, we are not in favour of any further regulations designed to increase the cost of doing business in the Northwest Territories or hinder the responsible economic development of the north. Third, if this legislation is to be passed, then training dollars must be set aside to ensure that the people who are to implement it are fully equipped to do so.

First, let me turn to land claims. The NWT Chamber of Commerce unequivocally supports aboriginal first nations in requesting that all outstanding land claims be settled as a matter of priority.

The settlement of land claims will enable northern entrepreneurs to approach with certainty a single governing group in the entrepreneur's area of business with which he or she can deal directly and conclusively.

Currently businesses spend many man hours liaising with stakeholders, each of whom declare some degree of governance over land, water, licenses and permits, socioeconomic development, and the environment.

• 1200

The settlement of land claims will afford the business community the opportunity to invest their time in building relationships with the appropriate governing body germane to their business interests. It will allow businesses to adopt a targeted, rather than scatter-gun, approach to consultation.

The governing body will benefit from increased communication and discussion, thereby stimulating an increasingly productive, in-depth, sustainable business relationship.

The NWT Chamber of Commerce urges the federal government to address and conclude all outstanding land claims and negotiations as a high priority.

Concerning regulations, there is a welcome trend in the Northwest Territories towards the disestablishment of regulatory red tape. The word “reform” has been quoted freely. The NWT Chamber of Commerce heartily endorses regulatory reform. Indeed, it has been an active partner in providing advice and assistance to the territorial government, which has been astute enough to realize that if the north is to be developed both socially and economically, then we should be making it easier for people to do business here. We must provide opportunity, not obstacles, to progress.

The NWT Chamber of Commerce believes that while rules must be in place to give society structure and balance, regulations that govern business development must be specific, appropriate, and purposeful.

The Chamber of Commerce supports responsible, sustainable development and believes that the imposition of confusing layers of bureaucracy will at best impede and at worst smother northern economic development. Further, we believe that the board supplying and reviewing regulations must be subject to strictly monitored codes of conduct. The NWT Chamber of Commerce does not, and will not, support establishing regulatory bodies with far-reaching power and no accountability.

On the subject of training, the Mackenzie Valley resource management bill, Bill C-6, while rightly empowering northerners with the responsibility for their own land, is not clear on how the legislation should be interpreted.

If we are to ask businesses to invest considerable sums of money in exploring the north as a potential market, they have to know exactly what is required of them. The north must offer knowledgeable and experienced individuals capable of explaining regulations and working with companies to enable them to meet expectations. The bill must be suitably interpreted so that it can be implemented correctly and uniformly.

There must be particular attention paid to the authority that will review the act when it's proclaimed. The management of that authority must be nurtured.

We have a relatively small, though dedicated, pool of labour here. Training must be offered to northern people to ensure that they are adequately prepared for their new responsibilities. Failure to do so will result in delays and uncertainty and will directly impact the development of the north.

The recent federal throne speech passionately addressed the benefits of training and promised to invest in the development of people. The north badly needs these training dollars.

There is no better example of this than the empowering of northerners in the Mackenzie Delta to manage their own lands through the implementation of Bill C-6. It would be irresponsible of the federal government to pass this legislation without putting a process in place to ensure that the people who are to implement it are fully equipped to do so.

In closing, the NWT Chamber of Commerce would like to say that we are in favour of northerners being responsible for our own land. We believe it is critical to social and economic development that we become less dependent on the federal government for our future. We want to assure our own future through education, honest work, and personal developments. To that end, the NWT Chamber of Commerce is in general support of Bill C-6, provided that our concerns regarding regulatory efficiencies, land claims, and training are adequately addressed.

This concludes our presentation today and we thank you for the opportunity to address your committee. If you have any questions, we'd be pleased to answer them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mott.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Good morning, Ms. Mott. I want to thank you for your presentation today. It was clear, concise, and very quick.

One of the questions that came to me when you were discussing this is that land claims must be settled. I have a question regarding that.

• 1205

Is finality in the land claims very important, as well as a clear legal understanding and clarification of the aboriginal rights that are so often quoted, so that those involved in development will know what they're up against in the future?

Ms. Julia Mott: Thank you for that question. I think that's very important. At the moment companies come here—BHP is a perfect example—and they have to liaise with many, many stakeholders, some of whom emerge at a later date as perhaps not being quite so critical to the process as others.

I think if land claims were settled, we would have some certainty and there would be some conclusion with regard to who companies would best be focusing their attention on as priority. That's not to denigrate the process at all or to say that comprehensive consultation is not a requirement. I think it would just help to prioritize that consultation, so that makes it very important.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Is it costing right now with this bill not being passed? Can you give me an idea of how things will be improved if the bill itself is passed?

Ms. Julia Mott: Bob, did you want to speak to that?

Mr. Bob Brooks (Executive Director, Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce): Certainly. If this bill is passed the way it is right now, there will be further concerns of the business community, especially when you look at this organizational chart that you've come up with in order to complete this process. I know when business people took a first look at this organizational chart you provided, they were wondering if they should even bother at all.

When you're talking about costs, one of the things we are stressing is, is it an efficient way to do business? When we look at the added regulatory processes you are putting in here, it looks like it may be more costly. The thing we said in our presentation and that we're saying now is that whatever process you come up with should be efficient and simple to follow.

As far as whether it will make it easier—yes, if this bill is passed, or once this bill is passed in a more simplified version. Yes, it will be important for the business community.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just have a minute or a part of a minute left. You say that training dollars must be set aside to ensure that the people who are to implement it are fully equipped to do so. You're saying that right now, in the settlement areas under consideration here, there is not the technical expertise to implement the bill, so you'd like to see the training done prior to implementation or passage of the bill.

Ms. Julia Mott: Yes, I think it's very important that the training is done in advance. It's going to be very difficult for the people who are required to implement this if day one comes and they have little understanding of what is required of them.

I certainly believe that training is essential. This is a very complicated and intricate process. Bob just held up this flow chart, which DIAND provided us with on December 7, of how the system will be managed. It's quite scary. I think if companies are coming here they need to be able to have somebody to sit down with who will explain this process to them comprehensively so that exactly what is expected of people is known in advance.

There are words in here that say “might have significant impact” or “likely to have a significant impact”. What's the definition of that? Who is going to provide that definition? Will the definition remain uniform or will it be different for different kinds of industry? I think those issues need to be clarified and there needs to be somebody available to companies who can uniformly interpret words of that nature.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Mott and Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you for your statement, Mrs. Mott.

I would like to come back to the matter of training that you raise in your statement. I find your comments very interesting. Clause 26(5) of the bill states that:

(5) The federal Minister may establish funding arrangements with each board specifying the manner in which funding will be made available pursuant to a budget approved by the federal Minister.

• 1210

Many people are concerned with the high costs of all the boards that will be set up. I would like to know what your position is on this and I would like you to give us some more clarification about the training issue. You seem to say that the funds should be paid even before the bill is implemented, so that people can be trained in advance in order to explain the bill. Did I understand correctly? And do not forget to tell me what you think about the cost of the boards.

[English]

Ms. Julia Mott: You're right, it is very expensive. It seems that every time we introduce another level of regulatory system, it becomes more and more expensive, which is certainly not something the chamber purports to support.

With regard to training, a lot of aboriginal people who live in the communities don't care to leave the communities. They very much enjoy their environment and their lifestyle and so are restricted in the amount of education they can sometimes have access to.

What we're suggesting is that trainers go to the communities and not that training dollars be offered to take people out of their communities and move them down south or to some other educational establishment. It's important that this training take place in the communities. This may make it a little cheaper, because instead of moving a whole bunch of people from the communities somewhere where their expenses will be high, we're actually only moving one or maybe two trainers to the communities to effect this education.

Mr. Bob Brooks: The other point is that when you're stressing what these things are going to cost the northern community, what they're going to cost the taxpayer, if the process isn't done properly it's going to cost you a lot more. We feel that if you do the training up front and prepare these people so that they can answer the questions ahead of time and do the training properly, then you're going to save a lot of money in the long run, and it will save the northern taxpayer a lot of money in the long run as well.

Ms. Julia Mott: What we're also talking about here is a balance between cost and investment. If we're looking for companies to come and invest in the north, then I think we have to realize that there is going to be some cost associated with that, but the balance comes in—will the investment be more than the cost? That's something that has to be determined by the board.

Mr. Bob Brooks: There's also the issue of how much this is going to cost business. If businesses go into an area and go through a process and the people aren't trained appropriately, this is going to cost the businesses that much more as well. If they have to come back and do it again, it's going to cost them twice as much as it would have if they had spoken to somebody who knew what they were talking about.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Good day. Thank you for appearing today.

I was listening to your general ideas or areas of concern that you listed off quite quickly. Do you have a list of specific sections of the bill that are of concern to you and the Chamber of Commerce in the north? If so, have you looked at amendments to those specific areas? If you do, would you forward those to us?

Ms. Julia Mott: Our concerns at the present time are fairly general, and they're more with the language in which the bill is written. The language is not specific. Again I refer to the “might have” and the “likely to have” and “affected communities”.

We have been through some environmental assessments here before and I guess the same rules have not applied to everybody, because everybody's interpretation of these words is different.

If something “might have a significant impact”, what does that mean? What is significant impact? I think we just need to get our definitions a little closer. I recognize that impact will be different depending on which portion of the valley you're talking about. But what is “significant”? “Likely to have significant adverse impact”—what does that mean? I think we just need some clarity with the language in which this bill is written.

Mr. Bob Brooks: When we looked at the bill itself, there wasn't any particular item that stood out and made us say, no, we we didn't like that. But when you take it into the whole context of the bill, then there were a whole bunch of things that stood out.

• 1215

The first thing that grabbed us was looking at this organizational chart that has come out. Every chamber across Canada is of the opinion that when you're building any kind of policy or legislation the KISS principle should apply. It definitely does not look like that principle applies in this case.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate those comments.

Any discussion that we've had with industry, as least that I've had with industry, has always come full circle back to one clear and concise and simple discussion; that is, give us one single set of clear-cut rules to go by and we'll work within the boundaries of those rules. However, if we don't know what those rules are, it is very difficult to have a business plan that has any possibility of working if your rules change part way through.

Ms. Julia Mott: Absolutely.

Mr. Bob Brooks: Absolutely correct.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mrs. Longfield.

[English]

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

I was pleased to hear your presentation. I'm also pleased to hear that the views of the Northwest Territories chamber do not differ very greatly from those of chambers in southern Ontario and other parts of Canada.

I hear what you say about the dollars for training and I understand that you're representing a business interest and the opportunity to get in to invest as quickly as possible at the least cost. I understand that. However, I think you understand that from a committee's perspective, we're looking at protection of land and water and the interests of the long-term residents of that area.

My question comes with respect to financing and training. Is the Chamber of Commerce prepared to invest any of their dollars into assisting in this training?

Mr. Bob Brooks: Thank you for your question. I'd like to clarify your first remark, though.

In the second paragraph of our presentation we talk about the mission statement of the NWT Chamber of Commerce, which speaks of fostering development “in an environmentally responsible manner”. So if the environmental review or the assessment is necessary, that's exactly what should happen.

We are not so short-sighted that we would want any kind of development at any cost. We want the development to be long term, we want it to be sustainable, and we want it to be environmentally responsible.

The NWT Chamber of Commerce has a mandate to increase the training capabilities in the Northwest Territories. We already have a process in place where we go out to all the communities, where we bring in the communities to train them on various issues. So the short answer is yes. We are already putting our own moneys into the process in order to help a better-trained workforce and northern entrepreneurial pool.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Further in your presentation you made the statement that the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce “does not and will not support establishing regulatory boards with far-reaching power and no accountability”. Is it your belief that what we're suggesting in this bill will establish that kind of board?

Ms. Julia Mott: I think the problem at the moment with this is that it's not clear whether you are or not. We're very keen that all boards—not just these boards, but all boards, including our own—adhere to strict codes of conduct, which would cover conflict of interest and personal conduct. We would certainly urge you to consider that.

I think that was our main point with regard to that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Do you have any specific recommendations?

• 1220

Mr. Bob Brooks: In addition to that, when we're talking about no accountability we want to make sure that any of these boards that are put in place have accountability to someone or to the public in general.

As a matter of fact, in all these boards and agencies we feel it's the public who has the right, and that's who the bill affects. So when we talk about accountability we don't want to have people making arbitrary decisions, because it might have an impact. Whatever decisions they make, based on this criteria, they should be accountable to somebody for those decisions.

We don't want them destroying business opportunities because of an arbitrary decision based on something that likely might happen.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I thought I was finished until your last statement. Do you not believe that there should be a fair amount of discretionary power with any board that's looking at— We're carving new territory here. I don't think that any development is cut and dried. There needs to be some opportunity for them to make some decisions based on the situation before them.

Ms. Julia Mott: Yes, all boards need discretionary powers and I don't think anybody would argue with that. But if they do have these discretionary powers, then there has to be some sort of accountability to the people and also some sort of appeal process to a higher body, perhaps to the minister.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Clause 8 provides that this board is directly accountable to the minister.

Ms. Julia Mott: Good.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Longfield. We will now start the final round with Mr. Konrad, Mr. Keddy, Mr. Bryden and Mr. Finlay, for three minutes each.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

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

The location of some of these offices is in the Sahtu areas proposed to go into Fort Good Hope. I understand these are in remote areas and I just wonder what effect that has on education. Do they have the community infrastructure, such as a power supply for all of the computer equipment required? If you're doing one-stop shopping for approvals, is it a burden to get to Fort Good Hope and places like that to make your presentations?

Ms. Julia Mott: In answer to your first question, yes, all the communities have the required infrastructure.

With regard to going to the communities to make presentations I'll use BHP as an example. They probably visited every community in the western Arctic when they put forward their proposals for the diamond mine. If they were only to go to Fort Good Hope, they would probably be very grateful for that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On the transitional arrangements, through your interpretation of the bill and what you know of it and what you understand of it, how will the current permits and licences that are in effect now be affected by the legislation that's coming up?

Mr. Bob Brooks: I'm sorry. Could you clarify that question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What I'm specifically talking about is whether or not you believe the bill adequately addresses concerns of grandfathering of licences and permits that are in effect now. Will these continue to be in effect or will they come under a new regulatory process?

We had some discussion today that if the original intent of the permit or the licence hasn't changed from the period it was issued, it would be in effect. However, perhaps the operation had changed somehow and then they may come under the new regime. Is that the way you see this coming in? Do you perceive any problems associated with it?

Mr. Bob Brooks: Actually, that's pretty much the standard for all legislation. Any bills that are passed under the present regime follow that regime until they make changes. I think that's acceptable to us and it's also understandable to business. When they apply for something, they're applying under the current rule. They build their business plan around the rules that are made. If you change the rules at the end, they'll only be in favour of those changes if they benefit them.

• 1225

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And that's clear to you in the act as you understand it?

Mr. Bob Brooks: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's all.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Bryden, for three minutes.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've drawn, at least to my attention, a problem that may exist in the bill. Under clause 26—this is the general provisions, part I for boards—boards are required to report to the minister annually with a financial statement, and the minister will make this public.

In reading part I, which is the general provisions of boards, there appears to be no allowance for public hearings or for record keeping. Would it help you or give you some consolation if you knew that the meetings of these boards were required by statute to be open and that minutes and proper records would be kept for the public to view at their convenience? Would that help?

Ms. Julia Mott: Definitely. I think that would be critical.

Mr. Bob Brooks: I'm sorry, but I absolutely expected that this would be the case.

Mr. John Bryden: So you think it should be in the bill. As I read the bill now it would appear these boards could hold all their hearings in camera if they so chose.

Ms. Julia Mott: I think it's absolutely critical that the minutes and proceedings of their meetings be in the public domain.

Mr. John Bryden: And put it in the bill if we can.

To follow up on this line, we did have some discussion about defining the responsibilities of boards and the general provisions for boards—that's part I again. Is that something you would favour? Would it help your concerns if we defined the responsibilities of the boards in general?

Ms. Julia Mott: Yes, I think that would help considerably and I would again draw your attention to the codes of conduct that we talked about, especially with regard to conflict of interest. These are very small communities and I think conflict of interest is something that could arise quite regularly. I think it would be critical to have something laid down in the legislation to deal with it and to help people manage it.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm very sympathetic to that principle, incidentally. I do think you have to define in legislation the parameters in which you expect people to act, and these days it certainly includes transparency and codes of conduct.

Finally, and I'm not sure of this, but is it possible to set in the legislation—again, in part I on the general provisions for boards—some sort of minimum qualifications? I don't know whether that works in legislation, but you're talking about training, and I know where you're coming from there. You don't want somebody nominated to the board who knows nothing about land use or water boards or anything like that. You want some minimum qualifications. Is that something we should consider?

Mr. Bob Brooks: I think I have a big problem with that. One of the things the north is plagued with is a lot of southern formulas that don't apply to regional areas. When you talk about how well-prepared these people are, often you don't think of the work experience they've had, the northern knowledge they have of the area, or the cultural experiences they've had in the area. Often those are not taken into account when you look at broad-based formulas. If you're going to figure out formulas, you have to go to each region and figure out the formula for that region, not a formula that's going to be good for all Canadians all over Canada. That doesn't work in the Northwest Territories and never has.

Mr. John Bryden: I thank you for that. I don't think it works elsewhere either, if it's any consolation, so I accept that remark.

• 1230

Let me just ask you one further thing then. What do you mean by training? You talked about training people for these boards. Training is a broad word. What do you mean by it?

Ms. Julia Mott: As Bob said, a lot of people in the north have a great deal of experience of many varieties that enables them to be valuable members of boards. A lot of the training comes with regard to how a board operates, the purpose of it, why it is there, what is expected of it and defining legislation. That is the kind of training we are talking about.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Finlay, for three minutes, after which we will adjourn.

[English]

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

Ms. Mott and Mr. Brooks, were you present for our first witnesses from the Sahtu?

Ms. Julia Mott: Yes, we were present.

Mr. John Finlay: Then you probably know what I'm going to ask. I agree with the chamber of commerce mission statement to foster development in an environmentally responsible manner as the basis of economic and social progress in the Northwest Territories. In much of your short presentation, however, I found an attitude that for me belies that understanding. First you say you are in full support of a speedy conclusion to aboriginal land claim settlements. So am I and so is everybody in the federal government. So is everybody. But it isn't going to happen, and living there you know that equally as well as I do. So I'm not sure that there's any point in that. Christmas is coming and we all may get what we want, but I doubt it.

Second, you are not in favour of any further regulations designed to increase the costs of doing business or to hinder responsible economic development. We are all interested in responsible economic development and we are all interested in having business in the Northwest Territories to employ the people there. None of the regulations are made to increase the cost of doing business. They may increase the cost of doing business, and that might be a good thing. I imagine the people who lost billions of dollars in Bre-X might be saying that Indonesia should have a few more regulations.

Then you go on to talk about a single governing group in the entrepreneurs area of business with whom he or she can deal directly and conclusively. Of course, it's much easier. You can deal with one person. You can divide and conquer. You can set one off against another. You can do all sorts of things.

In the next sentence you say that businesses currently spend many man hours liaising with stakeholders, each of whom declare some degree of governance over land, water, licences and permits, socio-economic development, and the environment. That is absolutely true. It is happening all across the country. It is happening in the maritimes, in southern Ontario, and in the north.

After saying they spend too many hours, the last sentence in the next paragraph says the governing body will benefit from increased communication and discussion, thereby stimulating increasingly productive and in-depth sustainable business relationships. Tremendous. Then let's stick to it. We cannot have it both ways. You must provide opportunity, not obstacles to progress. Exactly.

We cannot be shortsighted; it is the long term. The long term is going to take long-term planning, discussion, and a better understanding of what everybody's needs are if we're going to develop the north in a sustainable and appropriate way.

Mr. Bob Brooks: To reply to those comments, first of all, thank you for agreeing with our position paper. I also like your candour.

One of the points I would like to touch on is our comment about speedy land claims. You said that people in the federal government also believe there should be a speedy conclusion to the land claims process. It is nice to hear you say that, but when we look at history and at past practice, it doesn't always appear that way. So we thought it was important to stress that point.

You talked about further regulation. As Julia mentioned in our presentation, the GNWT is going through a regulatory reform process whereby they are looking at all of the regulations and policies that we have. We're trying to make it easier for people to understand and easier to do business with. We feel that since you're drafting new regulations, new policies, it would only be appropriate to look at what processes are in place already and to try to improve on those.

• 1235

Further, when we talk about regulatory reform and public involvement, we absolutely agree that the public has to be involved. If there is a cost to that, then so be it. Again, I reiterate that we're more interested in the long-term, sustainable development of the Northwest Territories rather than short-term destruction of the Northwest Territories.

When we talk about the regulatory reform, we want to make sure that all the rules are very clear. When we say it's costing business a lot to go out to all the communities and to talk with all the stakeholders, that's because the current regulations in place now are not as clear as they could be. It's our hope that since you're drafting new legislation it's done better than the past legislation.

Mr. John Finlay: I appreciate your comments.

You say all the rules should be very clear, that they should be long-term and so on, and that you want to improve on these regulations. All I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily happen to be simpler. We learn as we go.

When we first put up DEW line sites in the north, we didn't know or we didn't think about the fact that nothing rusts very fast in the north. It's not like southern Ontario, where you have to protect your car from rusting. We didn't know that the breast milk of Inuit women had more dioxins in it than the breast milk of women in Montreal, because we thought women in Montreal lived in a city where there was lots of industry and lots of fall-out from acid rain, and so on.

We don't know everything that the north requires and we don't know how to protect it adequately. As we learn these things, we have to take them into account. I quite agree with you about a welcome trend to disestablish regulatory red tape, but we don't know enough to deregulate too far.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

A final comment, Mr. Brooks?

[English]

Mr. Bob Brooks: In response to that remark, we're in absolute agreement that the information we have now is better than the information we had then. Hopefully, we'll continue to make better decisions as we get better information.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mott and Mr. Brooks.

We will adjourn until 3:30 p.m., when we will start our videoconference with the representatives of the Deline Land Corporation.