Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 5 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 5, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-6, 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, met this day at 9:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Charlie Watt (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the steering committee met on April 28 and agreed to hear 11 groups that wish to appear before the committee on this bill. We will also be sitting on May 12 and May 26. We have yet to set the time for the meetings. Is there a problem with nine o'clock? There is only one group next Tuesday, so you could start at ten o'clock. Either the deputy chairman or someone else must take the chair because I will be unavailable for several weeks, starting tomorrow. I believe you have a list of the groups that want to appear before the committee. We have received a message from the territorial government. They might want to appear before the committee or they might send us a letter. They are not certain yet.
Would someone move that we hear the people that we have in front of us today?
Senator Chalifoux: I so move.
Senator St. Germain: I second the motion.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
We will now hear from the North Slave Métis Tribal Alliance.
Mr. Clem Paul, President, North Slave Métis Allliance: Good morning, senators. Members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
I am speaking to you on behalf of the Métis people of the North Slave region in the Northwest Territories. The North Slave Métis are aboriginal peoples whose ties to the land go back to the time prior to the arrival of European civilization. With the coming of the fur trade, social contact and intermarriage between the aboriginal peoples in the North Slave region and those who came to barter goods for furs had a significant part in shaping our culture into who we are today.
The lands on which we lived and where we hunted, fished, and trapped are part of what is now known as the Mackenzie Valley, stretching from the southern shores of Great Slave Lake northward to Great Bear Lake. We identify ourselves as Métis. We have used and occupied the North Slave area from 1921 or earlier. That date is important because our ancestors signed Treaty 11 with the Government of Canada at that time. In the present-day political environment, the North Slave Métis have formed themselves into the North Slave Métis Alliance.
I referred a moment ago to Treaty 11. During the 1800s, our forefathers camped on the shores of Great Slave Lake in the area now known as the City of Yellowknife and north from there on the north shore of Great Slave Lake. With the coming of the fur trade, Old Fort Rae was established on a peninsula of the north arm, commanding a view over the waters. Old Fort Rae became a gathering place for the natives and non-natives who engaged in trade and developed social contact. This was the community where the Métis lived when they were not living out on the lands. Our people made the trip by canoe across the sometimes treacherous waters of Great Slave Lake to barter their furs for trade in clothing and the hunting, fishing, and trapping supplies that became instrumental for a better way of life on the land.
In time the trading post moved to a new location further north on the arm. simply called Fort Rae. A treaty party arrived here in August of 1921 and entered into a treaty with our people.
Commissioner H. A. Conroy recorded his contact with the aboriginal peoples in his report in the following way:
At Fort Rae is the largest band of Indians, about 800, and this is the most inaccessible, being on the arm of Great Slave Lake, difficulty in crossing this lake being experienced, most especially in the late summer and fall on account of storms, our party being stormbound at Hay River for five days prior to crossing. These Indians hunt in every direction from the fort, some as far as 200 miles, and only come to the post in spring to trade their furs, so that, in future, I would suggest that this be the first post visited when making payments.
I have come to address the comments and concerns of the North Slave Métis people on Bill C-6. There is much in this bill that can benefit our way of life in the future, but we have found many shortcomings in the legislation which will hinder the Métis people greatly in benefiting from this new law. I will summarize our views and then go on through many of the sections in detail.
Before doing that, I would like to say a few things about the history of the Métis people whose traditional home land is the North Slave region. With the arrival of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in the lives of aboriginal peoples, the Métis found themselves at a disadvantage to the aboriginals who had status under the Indian Act. The rights of Indians under this statute had been administered under the policies developed by DIAND to implement the law. The Métis people did not fall within the Indian Act and have subsequently not received the attention of the federal government.
Although we are aboriginal peoples and we now have an opportunity under the Charter to have our rights defined and accepted, we have traditionally been at a disadvantage. The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management bill will perpetuate this problem, unless changes are made to the legislation. The coming of the diamond mining activity in the North Slave region has brought with it the prospect of economic prosperity for our people, which has been unknown to us before. The North Slave Métis Alliance has been negotiating an impact and benefit agreement with Broken Hills Properties Limited, BHP, that can afford jobs and business opportunities to the Métis and bring with these benefits other social programs that will help the Métis to move from a traditional community lifestyle into a modern industrial workplace.
The Métis population within the North Slave region will be significantly affected by the opportunities from the BHP mine, and mining ventures with other companies will be established within the next few years.
Our position as an aboriginal group that has the status to advance a claim to land received a major boost this past March when the Minister of the Indian and Northern Affairs recognized the North Slave Métis Alliance as an aboriginal group with which it can negotiate a claim. We have already begun our work with the federal negotiator to start the process that will settle our claim.
Honourable senators, Bill C-6 has its focus on aboriginal groups who have already settled claims. The summary of the enactment says as much:
This enactment implements obligations under land claims agreements between Her Majesty the Queen and the Gwich'in and the Sahtu Dene and Métis, respectively. The Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement was signed April 22, 1992 and the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement was signed September 6, 1993.
The preamble to the bill, which will be part of the law when it is passed, states this objective in general detail:
Whereas the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement require the establishment of land use planning boards and land and water boards for the settlement areas referred to in those Agreements and the establishment of an environmental impact review board for the Mackenzie Valley, and provide as well for the establishment of a land and water board for an area extending beyond those settlement areas;
Whereas the Agreements require that those boards be established as institutions of public government within an integrated and coordinated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley;
And whereas the intent of the Agreements as acknowledged by the parties is to establish those boards for the purpose of regulating all land and water uses, including deposits of waste, in the settlement areas for which they are established or in the Mackenzie Valley, as the case may be...
This bill establishes boards that will have broad powers and authorities over the resources of land and water and the protection of the environment that are vital to the preservation of an aboriginal way of life. The Métis of the North Slave region are not given a right to membership on these boards. If the Métis do not succeed in somehow gaining appointments, their voice will be limited. Opportunities to even be aware of issues concerning development, land and water use, waste management and environmental concerns will be limited. I will say more about these as I review a number of this bill's clauses.
Clause 2 is the interpretation section of the act as a whole. There is a definition of "first nation" which is a phrase found frequently in the bill. The definition clearly covers the Gwitch'in and Sahtu people but does not have a clear definition of the Métis people. "Metis" is found in the definition and so is the phrase "North Slave" region, but there is no definition in this act or in any other legislation dealing with aboriginal peoples that gives meaning to these words.
In view of the frequency with which the phrase "First Nation" appears throughout the bill, there is a shortcoming which removes the opportunity for North Slave Métis people to benefit from the enactment in any meaningful way. There are definitions for land claim agreements, settlement area and settlement lands which refer to the region in the Mackenzie Valley covered by land claim agreements, for example, the Gwitch'in and Sahtu agreements. The enactment sets out the machinery for extensive regulations in those two areas but leaves the other parts of the Mackenzie Valley on the periphery.
In its present form, this enactment is premature because it will set up a two-tiered system of regulation based upon whether or not there exists a concluded land claims agreement. If the enactment is not amended, it should be shelved until all foreseeable land claim agreements in the Mackenzie Valley are concluded.
Clause 8 of the act requires consultation with First Nations in respect to any amendment of the act or in the course of negotiating a land claim. Until the definition of "First Nation" is clear, the Métis have no assurance that this section includes them.
Clause 9.1 is a broad statement identifying the purposes of the boards: to enable residents of the Mackenzie Valley to participate in the management of resources for their benefit and for the benefit of other Canadians. Since the focus of this act seems to be on the two settlement areas, it is difficult to see how this purpose can be achieved. The statement that the boards are meant to benefit other Canadians is too general to have any meaning at all.
Clause 11 is a general provision dealing with the appointment of members to any board established by the act. In the following parts, there are similar provisions dealing with the appointment on special boards. The thrust of section 11 and the related sections elsewhere is that an aboriginal appointment shall be nominated by a First Nation or the territorial minister or following consultation with First Nations. Once again, the absence of a clear definition of the aboriginal groups that would participate makes the appointment of boards problematic.
Given the few positions available on the boards for aboriginal appointments, when compared to the number of aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley, the nomination and appointment of members will not reflect true representation of the groups with legitimate interests, but rather will become a political contest to gain a nomination.
My comments apply to clause 36 and the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board; clause 38, Sahtu Land Use Planning Board; clause 54, Gwich'in Land and Water Board; clause 56, the Sahtu Land and Water Board; clause 99, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board; and clause 112, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.
The two Mackenzie Valley boards are of prime interest to the Métis because they have jurisdiction over the whole of the Mackenzie Valley, which includes the North Slave area. As an example of the problem, the recent appointment of a representative from the North Slave region to the newly formed Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board was made without consultation with the North Slave Métis. We were not involved in the nomination process at all.
Clause 15 provides for the appointment of aboriginal persons to a Gwich'in or Sahtu board if an issue arises in an area adjacent to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu settlement areas. The clause is directed at adjacent areas, which are similarly under a lands claims agreement. Once again, aboriginal peoples, who do not have a land claim agreement in effect in their homeland do not have a voice under this bill or matters affecting their lands.
Clause 35 provides the guiding principles for land use planning. The first part of the clause expresses the goal of protecting "the social, cultural and economic well-being of the residents and communities in the settlement area, having regard to the interests of all Canadians."
Proposed subsection (b) of clause 35 codifies the special attention that will be devoted to the Gwich'in and Sahtu rights. This clause also speaks in general about the undefined terms of the interests of all Canadians.
Clause 38 provides that the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board will have First Nations representation but no assured rights of representation to the Métis from other areas. As the Sahtu area is our neighbour to the north, discussions about the use of land there may have an impact on the North Slave region. Speaking on behalf of North Slave Métis, we have no voice in those decisions.
Clause 40 requires the planning board to determine the objectives of the land use plan for the settlement area in consultation with others. This process can only occur when there is a settled land claim. The North Slave Métis will not have access to the planning provisions of Part 2 because they do not occupy a settlement area as it is defined in this bill.
Clause 42 addresses public notice to adjoining settlement areas. By definition, the notice will be given to the Gwich'in and Sahtu areas. Clearly, the Gwich'in and Sahtu will be guiding the slip on land use planning decisions without any requirement that they consult with other groups. This gives a clear advantage socially, politically and economically to areas where claims have already been settled.
Turning to Part 3 of the bill, my comments concerning the land and water regulation provisions in Bill C-6 are along the same lines. The definition in clause 51 confines Part 3 to the Gwich'in and Sahtu areas. Aboriginal members will come from the First Nations. There are no provisions for representation of concerns from adjacent areas on board decisions.
Given the broad objectives expressed in clauses 58 and 59, along with the particular statements in clause 58 that decisions should provide optimum benefits to the residents not only of the settlement area but to the Mackenzie Valley and to all Canadians, the limited representation on these boards is a significant shortcoming.
Clause 73 grants rights to use water and deposit wastes without licence for various purposes. The activities are not restricted to the settlement areas. This section grants more rights than are afforded by land claims agreements. This ambiguity must be removed.
Clauses 74 and 75 grant exclusive rights to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu for the use of water and the deposit of wastes without licence and without alteration of quality, quantity or rate of flow by any other person. The Gwich'in and the Sahtu are receiving preference that is not available to others and could well have a substantial negative impact on the use and enjoyment of waters by the Métis in the North Slave region.
Clause 83 requires the federal minister to consult with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu and the board set up in this bill before proceeding with amendments to the Northwest Territories Waters Act. There is no mention of a similar opportunity for other aboriginal groups, in particular the North Slave Métis.
Clause 90 grants extensive regulation-making powers to the Governor in Council in consultation with the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the First Nations. These powers extend to all the lands in the Mackenzie Valley. As the proposed legislation presently reads, there is no identifiable procedure that would assure the Métis of any input into the making of regulations.
Clause 92 stipulates the punishment for failure to comply with orders to take measures to protect the environment. The monetary penalties should be many times higher than the $15,000 limit in this clause.
In Part 4 of Bill C-6, clause 99 provides for the establishment of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board at a future date. At this time, the Gwich'in and Sahtu board representatives will become members of the regional board.
The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board will have 17 members made up of members of the Gwich'in and Sahtu regional panels and a chairperson, three appointees of the federal minister, made in consultation with First Nations, one appointee of the territorial minister and two others.
The chairperson of the two regional boards will apparently have some voting authority on the boards' composition. This seems insignificant. Under the failed Dene-Métis agreement, in principle, there was a 50 per cent representation of aboriginals on all boards. This bill only provides for seven aboriginals on a board of 17 members.
Together, the Sahtu and the Gwich'in have four aboriginal members. There are only three seats for the rest of the geographical area known as the Mackenzie Valley that remains to the dealt with under a future lands claims agreement. It is impossible to know at this time whether the three seats of this board will adequately represent the interests of all the aboriginal groups who have yet to settle claims in the Mackenzie Valley. Furthermore, there is no procedure identified within which aboriginal groups will be consulted by the minister during the appointment process. The proposed legislation is simply too vague in the present-day environment of uncompleted lands claims negotiations for this legislation to go forward in its present form.
In the two settlement areas, the First Nations appointments appoint their representative to the board established under their land claim agreement. In Bill C-6, the First Nations have at best an opportunity to be consulted by the minister before the minister makes an appointment. This bill affords less self-determination to aboriginal peoples than is available under present settled land claims.
Clause 108 provides for the creation of additional regional boards. The drafters of the bill may be foreseeing the settlement of three claims in the future that will complete the claims negotiations in the Mackenzie Valley. If that is so, one of the areas the drafters contemplate is probably the North Slave region. This area, as you will certainly appreciate from my presentation this morning, is an area of prime concern in my remarks to you.
The regional panel must include one appointee of the federal government made after consultation with the First Nations and one appointee coming from either the territorial minister or another person whose source is unknown. The chairperson will be appointed by the federal minister from the persons nominated by a majority of the members of the regional panel. Since there are only two members, there can be no majority. There is no readily apparent reason for these regional boards to be smaller than the Gwich'in or the Sahtu panels. Furthermore, the Métis have no assurance that a representative of their interests would be the appointed member of the North Slave regional panel.
Clause 8 must be revisited. It requires significant redrafting before it will benefit the North Slave Métis.
Part 5, Clause 112, provides for the establishment and membership of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. The membership, other than the chairperson, will be divided equally between First Nation representatives and nominations by the territorial minister.
If the board has seven members -- which is the minimum number prescribed -- two of the three First Nations members would be Gwich'in and Sahtu appointments. There would only be one position available for any other aboriginal group in the Mackenzie Valley. This does not give the Métis any opportunity for representation in environmental matters.
The executive summary says there shall be an 11-member Environmental Impact Review Board for the entire Mackenzie Valley. If this board is going to function efficiently, 11 members would be the minimum number that would enable representation of aboriginal groups in the geographic area known as the Mackenzie Valley, namely the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, South Slave, North Slave and Deh Cho. If the board is to have complete representation, the distinct interest of the Métis will have to be accommodated on the board.
Clause 126 allows the First Nation group in two settled areas to refer environmental matters to the review board. Until a claim is settled in the North Slave area, there is no mechanism in this bill to provide for a similar reference. At present, diamond mining interests are exploring and developing the centre of the North Slave area. This is another difficulty with enacting Bill C-6 in its present form at this time. Under clause 132, the representation of the Gwich'in and Sahtu on the review panel reflects an imbalance in favour of these two regions over all the other aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley.
Finally, clause 136 provides for distribution of the decision of the review panels. The decision must be distributed to every First Nation affected by the decision. The First Nations should be involved in the process prior to the distribution of the decision, not after it has been made. This is the first mention of every First Nation having some role in an aspect of this bill.
In conclusion, the Métis of the North Slave are committed to the preservation of the lands and waters for future generations using the means of joint management and guaranteed representation. Bill C-6 is not a step in that direction. Changes must be made. The opportunity for the Métis to participate is tenuous, if it is present at all. The recognition given to settled claims leaves aside the concerns of the people in the areas of the Mackenzie Valley on the same issues.
I thank the committee for inviting me to make this presentation today. With that, I will attempt to address any questions that you might have.
The Chairman: Thank you for your excellent presentation.
Senator St. Germain: Your concerns on this bill are numerous. We heard the government officials last week presenting the government side, and I hope this is not an example of government doing things to people instead of for people.
This morning I will ask you some of the questions we asked the officials and get your comments on them. When the officials were here last week, they actually had a copy of each land settlement. They said that the legislation was predicated on the settlement they had arrived at with the Sahtu and the Gwich'in. That scares me because there are so many unsettled claims like yours, and the Métis status is really not defined, as you pointed out in your presentation.
As far as representation, you do know that there is a floor as to the number of members of any of these boards, but that there is no ceiling. There is a possibility -- and I do not know whether this would be satisfactory to you -- that everyone could be represented on these committees. I know that once a committee gets past a certain number of people, it becomes unmanageable. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Paul: Yes, I am. I tried to articulate that in my presentation. The make-up of these overall territorial boards is very cumbersome, as it is defined in the bill. It defines the Land and Water Board as having five members from the Gwich'in, five from the Sahtu, and three from each region other than in the area of unsettled claims, so that is a total of nine, plus one chairperson. Each of those regional panels has an appointed chairperson. The chairpersons are welcome to vote and participate in the regional panel, and in the overall territorial panel. There is a mixture of seven aboriginal peoples on the territorial board, six chairpersons, five of them from regional panels and one for the territorial panel, and then six territorial members. The way the bill is written today, every aboriginal person sitting on the territorial Land and Water Use Board will be shadowed by a chairperson. We feel that the chairperson's role at the regional level is to be neutral, so why take that neutral person and put him into a territorial level and give him voting powers? It does not make sense to us.
Senator St. Germain: I want to go over some of the questions we asked the officials last week, and I would like your comments on them if you are in a position to do so.
I pointed out that I do not believe that all these boards, as dictated by the settled land claims agreement, are the most efficient way to deal with the environment, land planning and water matters. Could you see a single board with sufficient representation, with a single secretariat, dealing with all of these matters?
Do you think it would be better to set qualifications for people who are appointed to the boards? When you are dealing with matters so important to the people that reside in these areas, there perhaps should be qualifications laid out in the legislation, and there are none.
Mr. Paul: I certainly can see downsizing some of the bureaucracy that this bill in its present form has the potential of creating. As I pointed out in my brief, the old Dene-Métis agreement allowed for 50 per cent representation by the Dene-Métis in the settlement area. When they bring the regional groups together, we lose that 50 per cent representation. On that territorial board, which is supposed to look after and make decisions on the entire Mackenzie Valley, there are only seven aboriginal -- Dene-Métis -- seats available out of a total of 17. That is quite far from the 50 per cent representation that was supposed to be accommodated in the Gwich'in and Sahtu claims and in the failed Dene-Métis claim in the Northwest Territories.
I understand that regional boards might have to be established. I have no argument with that, but I feel that it should be consistent with what was negotiated in good faith with the Government of Canada in developing the old Dene-Métis agreement, where you had Dene and Métis representation throughout the entire Mackenzie Valley, not leaving some groups in and some groups out. The federal government has established an interim working group, called the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board Working Group. They have appointed a person from the North Slave, and they did not consult us. They did not even ask us to nominate a member or a representative to that board. There were absolutely no guidelines or requirements of any kind.
Senator St. Germain: I could ask about clause 5, which is the aspect of non-derogation and protected rights. But do I gather from your presentation that your main concern is that we are proceeding with two land claim settlements in place, but that the rest of them have not been defined, and the status of the Métis has not been clearly defined, and that until the rest of the lands claim settlements are dealt with, that this should be postponed?
Mr. Paul: That is what I am saying. Today, we are consulted on some things. Under this bill, it will be worse. There is no guarantee of consultation whatsoever. The only guarantee of consultation in this bill is that the minister will consult you after the decision has been made. We want to be consulted at the outset, not at the tail end.
Senator St. Germain: Are there any decisions that could be made that could adversely affect the people who have not signed land claim settlements? If the two groups that have signed a land claim settlement are predominant on this board, could it adversely or negatively affect the others?
Mr. Sholto Douglas, Vice-President, North Slave Métis Alliance: With the Gwich'in final agreement and the Sahtu final agreement, there will be five members of the regional panels who will sit at the territorial board. As well, the Sahtu would gain the status of having their regional panels become full members of the board. You will have ten members: composed of four aboriginals -- two from the Sahtu, two from the Gwich'in; four appointees, two of which would be appointed to the Gwich'in board by the government and two to the Sahtu; and two independent chairpersons sitting at the board level. There is a potential maximum of seven more members that could sit at that level. They would have all kinds of say, with voting authority and powers.
Right now, we have no representation on our lands. We have all kinds diamond mine development. With the existing legislation of the day, the NWT Waters Act, the Land Use Act, we get all the information. It is filtered down to us. We can go through all the different applications for permits and licences, and we can respond to that. In this case, it goes to the board. We have no representation there. It is not necessary that the information be filtered down to us. They will make decisions at that level in regard to our traditional land use territory on our home land.
Senator Forest: Thank you, gentlemen, for a very stimulating presentation. I am very interested in the Mackenzie Valley. I used to be on board of transportation. I know the area of which you speak, and I know the importance of proper land and water use and that the environmental review is needed there. You have mentioned on a number of occasions that the people who have not settled their claims would be at a disadvantage if this were to go forward. I am wondering where those negotiations for your lands claims are at and how soon they might be expected to be completed.
Mr. Paul: At present, as I said in my brief, we have received a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs inviting us to the negotiations in a comprehensive process in the North Slave region. We will begin talking with the federal negotiator next week and with the representatives of the Dogrib in the area to determine whether a land claim including Dene and Métis in the area is possible. To predict how lengthy a process that may be, the Dogrib are anticipating settling sometime this year, perhaps signing in the spring.
Under Treaty 8, the South Slave Métis are presently involved in land claims negotiations over the Akaitcho territory. I have no idea where they are or when they anticipate concluding.
As far as the Deh Cho, I believe their process for negotiating a claim is being discussed. Someone is assigned to their claim, but I have no idea where they are.
If you are alluding to perhaps waiting until claims are settled, I would not be qualified to answer when that might happen.
Senator Forest: That could be a very lengthy process because of the difficulties we have noted in other negotiations. In view of the coming development of the Mackenzie with the diamond mines and so on, are you not concerned that irreparable damage may be done to the environment or to the lands and water use in the meantime?
Mr. Paul: This week or early next week, our regional director general in the Northwest Territories will be announcing another diamond mine that is coming. At present, we are working towards a meaningful involvement in the process. We will be taking a comprehensive review process rather than a panel process. I was fortunate enough to be invited to the meeting to discuss some of these things with our regional director general. He has assured the aboriginal peoples in the area that, since there is so much vagueness and ambiguity within the comprehensive review process, it allows for an opportunity to be creative, to develop a made-in-the-north process, to involve aboriginal peoples at the regional level in decisions made in their homelands. We are one of those fortunate people.
I can only speak for the Métis, but that gives us a certain degree of comfort that we never had before. Those initiatives are taking place. Our involvement in the process is happening today. It is not guaranteed, but that is why I stated earlier that the status quo in this case is better than this bill. Whereas this bill does not allow for any consultation, right now we are being consulted. We will be participating in a made-in-the-north process. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, that process is better than what we would get under this bill in its present form.
Senator Taylor: I am a geologist and mining engineer, so you can imagine I spent a lot of time up and down the Mackenzie and in the northeast. I would like to ask about the general concept of the Métis up there. There are many Métis there. Do you consider yourself speaking for all the Métis in the north, or just for the North and South Slave?
Mr. Paul: As I said at the outset, I am only qualified to speak for the North Slave Métis Alliance. It is generally made up of a good majority of Métis in the North Slave region.
Senator Taylor: I would suspect that the majority of the population up there, not including bands, have native blood, in other words, are Métis. You are the population. People who do not belong to a band and do not have native blood are definitely in the minority, except perhaps in the City of Yellowknife.
I am a little puzzled why the Métis would not consider themselves to be the population, per se. In other words, why should they be partitioned off as Métis when they must be the majority of the non-registered, non-status people in the Mackenzie Valley?
Mr. Paul: I am not quite familiar with the most recent statistics, but I think we represent about half of the Dene.
Senator Taylor: Can anyone at all become a member of the Métis? Is there a board of elders who decides who can be a Métis? I do not think you use blood tests?
Mr. Paul: No, they do not use blood tests. Different criteria are set out in the different communities. The Métis Nation, of which we are not a part, has about 15 locals in a number of communities throughout the valley.
Senator Taylor: I feel you should have representation and input, but the bureaucrats have a problem, too. You just mentioned the 15 Métis locals; you are not part of that Métis Nation. That seems to be a bigger problem than is found anywhere else in the world. What are the procedures? We recognize North Slave and South Slave and these 15 other Métis organizations. Is there some way around it? Perhaps you should use Bill C-31 and join the bands?
Mr. Paul: I suppose we could all use Bill C-31 if that was possible. Like this bill, Bill C-31 has certain guidelines and principles that must be followed in order to become an Indian. If you do not reach those qualifications, then you are not eligible to be a Bill C-31 Indian.
Senator Taylor: In Alberta, nearly everyone seems to make it through.
Senator Chalifoux: That is not really so.
Senator Taylor: You have not tried, Senator Chalifoux.
Senator Chalifoux: I do not want to, either. I am Métis.
Senator Taylor: I hear what you are saying, but I am trying to get a handle on how to describe in written words the process for recognizing organizations which decide on their own membership. If there are 15 or 20 such groups all up and down the valley, how do we solve that?
Mr. Douglas: For clarification, when we make reference to the Métis Nation in the Northwest Territories, four of the locals that have membership affiliation with the Métis Northwest Territories are in the Gwich'in region. Three Métis locals are in the Sahtu region. Both of those regions have finalized their land claims agreements. Outside of those two settled regions, eight Métis communities have affiliated status at the Métis Nation in the Northwest Territories. They are in the Deh Cho and the South Slave region. We have Métis affiliation in the community of Yellowknife with the Métis Nation of the Northwest Territories, but we have two Métis communities in the North Slave region which are not affiliated with the Métis Nation of Northwest Territories, plus we have the Métis communities that work alongside of us.
This is because they have gone to regional claims. The interest and the political agenda is at the regional level now. The old Dene-Métis claim on which we elaborated earlier included the five regions and involved the bands and the Métis communities. They end up with the Gwich'in tribal council, the Sahtu-Dene-Métis tribal council, the Deh Cho First Nations tribal council, Treaty 8 tribal council, the South Slave Dogrib Treaty 11, and the North Slave Métis Alliance. On the old Dene-Métis claim, everyone was plugged equally into the process. If there was a recognition of the Dene and the Métis and if there was a finalization of that agreement, the Métis could participate as a First Nation member in their institutions and vice-versa. A First Nation member could participate in the Métis institutions because there were some communities that were set up to be totally First Nations or totally Métis Nation.
For example, in Norman Wells, there are no First Nation bands, but there is a Métis community. First Nation members from other communities in the Sahtu region who live and work in Norman Wells could have been enumerated and could have been beneficiaries to the agreement, even though they are First Nation members living in that Métis community. They had the right and the option to do so.
The failed Dene-Métis agreement had provisions for deciding on that membership status. When that big agreement fell apart, it enabled the regions to move ahead. In our case, the Gwich'in were able to move ahead and negotiate their final claims agreement on the premise of the Dene-Métis agreement which failed on April 9, 1990, and followed through with the Sahtu. There were Métis people who participated in the Gwich'in process, but they chose to represent themselves as being Gwich'in to the Gwich'in tribal council. When it got to the Sahtu, there was a predominantly Métis community in Norman Wells -- no bands were ever created there -- and that community stood up and demanded recognition of the Dene-Métis.
That is how the region evolved and finalized their claim agreement, now called the Sahtu-Dene-Métis agreement. The Dogribs are in the process of setting their claims. The North Slave Métis Alliance recently got a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs. We will determine whether we will work alongside in a parallel process with the Dogribs or whether we will work on our own North Slave Métis Alliance claim.
The communities have moved from seeking the big claim to working down at the regional levels. The North Slave Métis is the regional entity group that looks after our region. Under the old Dene-Métis agreement, there would have been a 50 per cent representation of aboriginal people from those five regions and 50 per cent representation from government appointees to make up the regimes that were being proposed.
When it fell down into regional status, there was no table set up where we could negotiate a final agreement because these other claim processes are ahead of us. Until you get to that stature, you do not get to the table to negotiate. In this case, the cart is before the horse. We are coming after the fact with this proposed bill.
Senator Taylor: I have an apology to make to the Chair and particularly to the two witnesses. I am very interested and I have spent a great chunk of my life in that area, but there is a fire storm, a political fight, going on in the energy committee, and they have called a meeting at ten o'clock. I must be there to vote. We will not be voting in this committee this morning. I will carefully read your testimony later. I will be very interested in that.
The senators who are here are able and knowledgeable and will ask the questions that I would have asked. Again, I apologize, but these things happen.
Senator Andreychuk: We were told, when the Sahtu and the Gwich'in agreements came to us, that they failed because the Métis, Inuit and First Nations could not come to an agreement. However, there was some hope that the claims of those who were left out would be settled quickly. Were you involved in those initial agreements and negotiations? You are speaking about being brought to the table now. Were you at the table leading up to those agreements?
Mr. Paul: This bill was anticipated under the old Dene-Métis agreement that failed in 1990, in which all of the aboriginals, the Dene and the Métis in the Mackenzie Valley were involved. Everyone was supposed to share equally in the bill and be active and equal participants. However, that agreement failed. Subsequently the Gwich'in settled their land claims. A couple of years later, the Sahtu settled their land claim.
Their land claim agreements contain almost the identical wording of the failed Dene-Métis agreement that called for the establishment of a Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. A resource management act was anticipated after the settlement of all the claims in the Mackenzie Valley because it was going to be settled under one agreement. There are now only two claims representing approximately 25 per cent of the aboriginal peoples. The other 75 per cent are in unsettled land claims. Therefore, as I said in my presentation, Bill C-9, in its present form and in the present political situation in the north, would be unfair to the people in the unsettled land claim areas. Under the old claim, it was clear that we were all equal. There would be Dene-Métis representatives all over. The make-up of the original board would have seen all members as active and equal participants. Under Bill C-6, there is a clear distinction on which groups this act is favouring. It is certainly not us.
Senator Andreychuk: When the two agreements were signed and brought through Parliament, did you register your objection to their agreements, which referred to water rights on your disputed lands?
Mr. Paul: Actually, those agreements did not give them water rights on our lands.
Senator Andreychuk: It would affect them, I should say.
Mr. Paul: I believe their land claim agreement was a good agreement because it got passed. Their people liked it. I will not argue its merits. However, their agreement called for the establishment of legislation. It also stated clearly that they had rights within their settlement area, but outside of those rights, they follow rules of general application. Under this bill, more power is invested in them than was provided in their land claims. They will now have guaranteed representation on the board, have active participation, hold a majority of seats and make decisions on issues well outside their settlement area.
Senator Andreychuk: You also said that you think this legislation should be held up until the claims are settled; is that correct?
Mr. Paul: I outlined two options: Either make substantial changes to accommodate some of my concerns and some of the concerns of other northerners that will probably be brought forth; or hold it up; or perhaps both: make amendments and wait for a better time.
These two settled agreements call for the establishment of a management regime throughout the Mackenzie Valley. However, in my opinion, this proposed legislation will not be a saviour to the Gwich'in or the Sahtu in its present form. Their land claim agreement clearly states their jurisdiction and their powers within the homelands. This bill does not afford us the same ability.
Senator Andreychuk: Was the bill originally more favourable to you? Did all these comfort clauses that they started adding compound the problem?
Mr. Paul: To be perfectly honest with you, I saw draft 37 and that is the last draft I saw until this one. We were not involved, as many people in the north were not, in following this rolling of drafts.
I remember that about a year and a half ago some aboriginal peoples complained about playing catch-up with the bill. They had just finished reading draft 16, which meant nothing because the drafters had already moved to draft 24. During the process, there were about 60 drafts. Somewhere along the line, many northerners gave up trying to follow it. They were losing a sense of what it meant and how it would affect them, and they were waiting for the finished product. That finished product arrived some time in March in its present form. That is what I am speaking on today. As far as being involved in that process before, I was not involved at all.
Senator Andreychuk: If this bill is passed in its present form, will that affect your land claim? Or will the comfort clauses and other clauses not have any effect on your ongoing negotiations?
Mr. Paul: To the extent that there is favouritism towards settled land claims, it will surely affect us. Under the failed Dene-Métis agreement, we were guaranteed 50 per cent representation on all boards. On the territorial Lands and Water Board, there are 17 members, and only seven aboriginals have a seat on it.
It is substantially less than 50 per cent. We hope that it will not be used as a precedent in our land claims, and we hope that we will involved in our land claim negotiations. We do not want to be told that we had a chance to voice our concerns on Bill C-6 and that we lost our battle, and that now the 50 per cent representation will be reduced to only 23 per cent because that is what was outlined in Bill C-6.
Senator Andreychuk: The bill also says that this will not be a precedent and should not affect your lands claims. You are telling us that you are not convinced; is that it?
Mr. Paul: The precedent or damage possibilities to land claims is not the driving principle behind my complaints today. I would like more representation on boards as well as the other things I complained about. Giving neutral chairpersons from five regional boards voting powers in the territory does not make sense. A number of changes should be made.
Senator Andreychuk: If those changes went through, would you then be satisfied with the bill? Are you objecting to the bill coming forward at this time, even though the land claims have not been settled?
Mr. Paul: If we could be given what has been afforded to the Gwich'in and Sahtu, I probably would not have the degree of concerns that I have right now, the way the bill stands.
Senator Adams: Last time we met, it was raining in Victoria, British Columbia. Now it is raining in Ottawa. Everywhere we go, it rains.
Is there any overlap between the South Slave Métis alliance, the North Slave, and the tribal council Métis? There are about 800 members in the Métis tribal council. Do you have any idea of the number in the Métis alliance?
Mr. Paul: I believe you are referring to a statement that I took right out of the Treaty 11 document itself. At the time of signing Treaty 11, there were 800 Indians is Fort Rae. Our ancestors were amongst those people.
Senator Adams: Are there two separate land claim agreements, one for the North Slave and one for the South Slave?
The Chairman: Yes, there are two separate agreements.
Senator Adams: You are claiming most of the area around Slave Lake. Perhaps you should be seeking more power under your land claim, because of how Bill C-6 could affect future development of any kind in your area -- not only for mines but for hydro as well.
I would like to know your feeling on future development -- not only with regard to mines, but also to hydro development. Recently, Newfoundland and Quebec agreed to develop another project at Churchill Falls. In the future, companies from B.C. and Alberta will probably want to develop dams, and to construct power lines in the Mackenzie Valley. How do you feel about that? If Bill C-6 is passed, my concern is that, before you are able to settle your land claim, some company may start claiming that it wishes to build a power line.
Mr. Douglas: The Dene-Métis agreement had called for 50 per cent aboriginal representation, and 50 per cent appointed by the government. The concerns in the old Dene-Métis agreement would be met if we if we could have a board that included an appointee of the Gwich'in or the Sahtu. It is important that they participate, and that they know what is happening in the other areas upstream from them. There are no protection measures set up in the existing land claim agreement. That is something that we must address.
Senator Adams: I heard that the Nunavut Dene had some agreement concerning future mining or hydro developments. Is there any thought about sharing royalties or the like?
Mr. Douglas: In the failed Dene-Métis agreement, throughout the five Mackenzie Valley regions, there was a provision that 75 per cent of the royalties would be set aside for the regions, and a percentage mechanism was built into that. This pertained to the development of subsurface entitlements <#0107> base metals, oil, and gas. The Gwich'in would get their royalties at 15 per cent, and the Sahtu -- the North Slave region, I believe -- would get theirs at 28 per cent.
I do not know if this has actually evolved into the unsettled claims areas, where the claimants, such as the Gwich'in and the Sahtu, have finalized agreements. I do not know if that would still be forthcoming in their agreements in unsettled areas. I do not know if it would work so that unsettled areas would be get revenues on royalties that would be set aside for them. We do not have a clear answer on that.
If those with existing claim agreements were able to get royalty revenue shares out of unsettled areas, and were also sitting on boards, it would create a conflict. It would be a problem for us -- people downstream could make decisions on our home territory about the development of mines and megaprojects to do with oil, gas, land use, water licensing, and so on. It is a significant concern for us that we have representation on those boards.
Senator Adams: The witnesses from DIAND said that the minister has not yet finalized the agreement on the membership of the board, and whether there should be a majority of local members. Do you agree with that?
Usually a department does not want us to move to amend a bill; they just want us to pass it. DIAND says that this bill is amendable, however. Do you have any amendments to suggest regarding the membership on the board?
Mr. Paul: I do not think that we should be getting anything less than the old Dene Métis agreement, or anything less than has been afforded to the Gwich'in or Sahtu. They have 50 per cent representation on those boards. Our territorial Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board should have 50 per cent representation by aboriginal people. It should not be dominated by chairpersons. We want decisions to be made. It serves no purpose to have six neutral people sitting at the table.
Senator Adams: Often the members of the water board, the Workers' Compensation Board, and the board of the power corporation are the same people. They are not local, and that is my concern.
Senator Chalifoux: Your presentation was well thought out and put together. On page 8 of your presentation, at the very bottom, you state that:
The Gwich'in and the Sahtu are receiving a preference that is not available to others and could well have a substantial negative impact on the use and enjoyment of waters by the Métis in the North Slave region.
Would you comment further? What is your opinion on how that should be changed?
Mr. Paul: In clause 73, the bill states that:
Notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Gwich'in First Nation and the Sahtu First Nation have the right to use waters or to deposit waste without a licence for purposes of trapping and non-commercial wildlife harvesting other than trapping, for purposes of transportation related to those activities and for traditional heritage, cultural and spiritual purposes.
It does not say "on their settlement lands." A certain ambiguity exists which might lead someone to believe that this bill is giving them powers over and above their land claims. In other words, they may be free to trap, to deposit waste, and to do all the other things mentioned, well outside their home lands, well outside their settlement area -- and well within ours. That ambiguity is a concern to us. There are no limitations on their land use, or on their abilities to deposit waste.
The Chairman: Basically, you are saying that these people already have a land claims settlement, and that this is going beyond the bounds, in terms of their right to exercise their traditional activities.
I believe that this is the general application applied to all the settlements, because we do not want to restrict ourselves to any particular territory. That has been the case throughout the whole land claims process. If you limit them, you will also limit yourself for the future. I confronted this particular issue in the past, and it is better not to restrict yourself.
Mr. Paul: My point is that there is no mention of consultation with others.
The Chairman: You must separate that from limiting them in an area. If you limit them, you also limit yourself.
Mr. Paul: I have no qualms about limiting them if you want to put "on their home land" or "in consultation with other First Nations who have adjoining property." The way it is now, it is so ambiguous that they have rights everywhere. They need not consult with anyone; they can go anywhere and do as they please.
In the aboriginal custom, there is a certain amount of respect, and that should be afforded in this bill. That respect includes consultation with adjacent settlement areas or other aboriginal communities.
The Chairman: I understand.
Senator Chalifoux: Let us turn to clause 58. In your brief you state that, owing to the broad objectives of that clause:
...decisions should provide optimum benefit to the residents not only of the settlement area but of the Mackenzie Valley and to all Canadians, [and] the limited representation on these boards is a significant shortcoming.
Please elaborate.
Mr. Paul: There is no mention that they must consult with adjacent land owners. We are the adjacent land owners. The only mention is to settlement areas. Until we have a land claim settled, we do not, according to this act, have a settlement area. They are not obligated to consult us on any of their activities.
This is something less than what is afforded amongst the two of them, the Gwich'in and the Sahtu. They do consult amongst themselves, and with Nunavut Inuvialuit, Yellowknife, and all other settlement areas. Under this bill, however, they are not obliged to consult with the North Slave or the Deh Cho, whose lands immediately adjoin the Sahtu and Gwich'in areas.
Senator Chalifoux: Until your land claims have been settled, you want the North Slave Métis and the Deh Cho to be included in the consultation process?
Mr. Paul: Absolutely.
The Chairman: This would be for the same reason that you want equal numbers of board members; you want to have a balance of powers, and a balance of authority. You feel that this particular legislation is more in the favour of two aboriginal groups who already have settled their claims. I think we have understood your point quite clearly, and it is well taken.
Our next witness is ready to proceed. Welcome.
Mr. Paul Harrington, President, South Slave Métis Tribal Council: Thank you for allowing us to come before you today.
I would like to introduce George Kurszewski. He is our chief negotiator and spokesperson, and he is our technical person on all things.
Mr. George Kurszewski, Chief Negotiator, South Slave Métis Tribal Council: This is our second chance to speak about Bill C-6. We appeared before a standing committee of the House of Commons, and we made our concerns known then. Since then, most of our concerns have not been incorporated, and we understand why. This process has been under way a long time, and it has reached the end of its journey. With the aboriginal groups and the South Slave becoming involved at the tail end, it is not a very good situation to be in. Nonetheless, we are here to let you know our views on the proposed legislation.
The Métis of the South Slave are a united group. In the last round, some federal official indicated that there were two groups of Métis in the South Slave; that is not true. The South Slave Métis Tribal Council is the only body in the South Slave that represents the Métis of the region. There is another Métis organization there, but after the passage of Bill C-31, they are no longer Métis, they are status Indians.
The Métis of the South Slave are good Canadians. We are proud to be Canadians. We have sent people to liberate Holland; my grandfather was there. We have people who have fought in Italy, and all over Europe in World War II. We also fought in World War I, and we are proud of that. We are proud of our country. We know that people see Canada as the best country in the world; a place where there is freedom of speech and democracy.
From our point of view, there is a need to uphold democratic tradition in the Northwest Territories. We have been run as a colony for too long. Many decisions that have affected our lives, futures, economies, and children have been made elsewhere. I know that other regions of the country have the same concern. In our case, the territorial government is actually an operating arm of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It operates under the authority of the NWT Act, which is not a constitution of the people of the NWT.
The people of the Northwest Territories are in the process of drafting a constitution for the western NWT. When Nunavut is formed next year, a western territory will also be formed, although not many people are paying attention to that. It is disheartening for us in the west.
Nunavut is being created, and we recognize that the Inuit people in the east will finally have their own government. The people in the west deserve their own government, too. This is something that we have been arguing for a long time. We deserve the same kind of constitutional rights as other Canadians, in some of our basic fundamental laws by which we govern ourselves.
The Métis history is well understood by people in Canada. The Métis were part of the early days of this country, when the fur trade opened up many different areas. Our people were guides, interpreters and traders. We have travelled all over the place.
The people from the South Slave region have family connections in the Red River Valley, Louis Riel's country. We have family connections in the roots of the many aboriginal peoples. We are well founded in this country, and we have a long history of resource management.
It may not be recognizable according to legislation and various agencies that have been set up over the years, but we have managed resources very well. We have certain laws that have been guiding us for many years to respect the land. Our people are like the aboriginal and Inuit people in that respect. We have an understanding of the laws of the land that has been passed on to us, and we uphold it. We take that in as part of our own makeup and culture.
The Northwest Territories and the South Slave region are still intact, to a large degree. We have caribou herds passing through our country. We have buffalo, and we have the privilege of hunting them once in a while. We have many animals and fish that have not been negatively affected by anything. We have protected our territory vigorously from outside influences. We opposed a proposed dam on the Slave River because it would cause drastic changes to our part of the country, and we have opposed some pulp mill developments for a number of years.
In terms of environmental protection, we are the front line workers. We are the people on the ground. We are the community people, the ones who are there to make sense of the arguments. We do not talk philosophically or academically; we are practical people. We must make a living and that is what we do. We defend ourselves. We like to ensure that our children have the opportunity to use our lands and resources as we have. We are very protective of our lands and resources.
We see a threat in this bill. In a strong legal sense, it sets up a regime that takes the decision-making ability and the responsibility that we have for our part of the territory away from us, and place it in the hands of others. At this stage of the game, there are no environmental crises in our territory. Even though there are pressures, there are no issues that require this type of imposition. That is the first point.
It is not necessary to move so quickly on this. I know that there is a legal obligation to the Gwich'in, and I also know that there is good intent to have an integrated resource management regime. We do not have a problem with the legal obligations to the Gwich'in in terms of their territory. The Gwich'in should be able to manage their territory, just as we should be able to manage ours.
The subject of the integrated management regime causes us problems. The concept of this regime is a 1980s concept. We have moved beyond that, as have the courts. The courts are finally catching up with the fact that we, as aboriginal people, see ourselves in terms of our relationship to the land. In some circles, Delgamuukw is not an acceptable word.
The Chairman: What does that mean?
Mr. Kurszewski: It is the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on a case in B.C. that involved aboriginal land interests, and management interests with respect to their land. I feel that these proceedings need to take developments of that nature into account, because we have been arguing for years that our people have certain management rights to the land.
This was not recognized in negotiations in the 1980s. The Dene-Métis negotiations in 1980 were a very strange situation. I was a senior negotiator for those negotiations and I worked under Bob Overvold, who was the chief negotiator, and, later, for Ted Blondin. I was there for the whole thing, and I can tell you that the Dene-Métis claim, if you take a good look at it, is a claim for third-party interests. It sets up all kinds of third-party interests. In fact, third-party interests and non-aboriginal rights are built into that agreement more than aboriginal rights are. New rights were conferred onto non-aboriginal people within aboriginal territory through that agreement and, it obviously did not work. People would not take that step. It was too much of a step backwards in those days, and it is an even bigger step today. People have moved away from that concept.
I would like to restate that we are not in opposition to an integrated resource management regime. It must be workable, however, and we do not think that this one is workable. It must take into account the state of affairs that we are in right now. It must also take into account the fact that aboriginal people have a legal right to manage their own resources in a way that makes sense, not in a way that someone thinks it should be done.
Our decisions on our resources -- any plans that come up for development, land use, et cetera -- must be respected. This bill does not do that. It will consider our decisions, but it will also overrule them also. That does not give us much security. It would not give anybody much security.
We argued to have a number of things included in this bill. We wanted more strong references to self-government agreements, as well as to protection for the results of those agreements. Times are changing, and people are recognizing the positive role that aboriginal people can play if we are not patronized so much. Let us take our own steps forward. If we make mistakes, as everyone does occasionally, it is not something to be feared. Our future is at stake here, and we will not make big mistakes. We have our children at heart, and we have a great respect for passing on the lands and the resources as we have received them.
History will show you that our way of thinking in regards to the decisions that we make, and how we do business, is in line with Canada's goals and objectives. There is a lot of documentation on our activities on environmental issues, and on other developmental issues that may have threatened our part of the country. I refer to the Mackenzie Valley Berger Inquiry, where with the rest of the aboriginal people, we were making a case for protecting the country. I feel that aboriginal people should be given a level of trust; we can play a beneficial role in this country, and we are trustworthy people when it comes to lands and resources, and the need for their protection.
In terms of the technical side of these issues, we have some recommendations in our brief that speak to those. We recommend that the constitutional protection of aboriginal rights be explicitly recognized in both the general principles, as well as the substantive portions, of the bill. In particular, we recommend that the guiding principles for boards empowered under this bill must explicitly recognize the constitutional protection of aboriginal rights. The best way to achieve this would be to also include the "for greater certainty" wording which appears in clause 5(2), in Part I, General Provisions Respecting Boards, and in those portions of the bill which set out the powers of boards.
We also recommend that the bill contain a non-derogation clause by which the aboriginal water rights, described in clauses 73 to 75, and the limitations on those rights, set out in clause 76, are not applicable to the unsettled claim areas, as those rights are still subject to negotiation.
Interestingly, these comfort clauses were a point of discussion at the standing committee level. One of the members of that committee pointed out that they take cold comfort in the comfort clause in section 5(2). Another member added that they generally agree that preambles are faint hope provisions. For the Métis, we hope for more than a faint hope clause in this bill.
As I already indicated, we think that there is no crisis for the timing of this bill. We do think, however, that positive developments will be affected by this timing issue. The Métis are currently in a lands and resources negotiations process, which we started in 1997. It is rolling along smoothly, and we hope to see results in two years. We have set our timetable around the term of this government, actually.
We do not like the idea of having long, drawn out negotiations if we can avoid them. We are attempting to get these negotiations concluded in a timely fashion, so that legislation can be drafted and passed through Parliament before this government leaves office. It is important for us, because we feel that we would like to settle these affairs and move on with life. We would like to continue developing our lands and our economies. We would like to do the good things that we have been held up from doing for some time because of the problem issues that we needed to address in negotiations and in the political arena.
We cannot predict the outcome of these negotiations, but I feel that management structures will change significantly through them, especially because of their self-government aspect. Aboriginal groups will take on increased legislative authority. That is a by-product of self-government negotiations.
The proposed legislation should contemplate self-government agreements as being important to the legislative framework in the Mackenzie Valley for years to come. That is an important thing to take into account, because these negotiations are under way. This type of bill should take into account the fact that, for the near future, and for the distant future, self-governing agreements will be a force in the Mackenzie Valley. I have been in negotiations before where officials and negotiators are extremely protective of territory that they have received authority for in legislation. It is more difficult to negotiate something away from a third party. Placing more and more interest into various hands just makes the job of negotiations much harder to accomplish.
We recommended to the House of Commons standing committee that the bill be amended to explicitly recognize that its provisions are without prejudice to existing or future land claims and self-government agreements. We have recommended that clause 2 in the definition section should be amended to read that "future land claim or self-government agreement means any comprehensive land claim or self-government agreement which comes into force in the Mackenzie Valley."
We talk about self-government in our presentation because of the history of aboriginal rights in the MacKenzie Valley over the last 25 to 30 years. Whether you look back on the 1970s legal cases, or whether you move on to the Dene-Métis, Inuvialuit, Inuit, Gwich'in-Sahtu, or Dogrib negotiations -- or even if you consider our present negotiations -- the underlying factor has been the need for self-government and self-determination. That is what they have been all about.
We have been steered into comprehensive land claims negotiations because that is the process. We went to court first, with a caveat placed on the Mackenzie Valley. You know the history of that. We accepted negotiations as a way to resolve our concerns. However, we have been steered into certain processes and frameworks for accomplishing these results.
One of the by-products of those processes is the idea of the 50-50 board, where we share 50-50 the authority on a board that makes recommendations to a minister. That is outdated. In terms of sitting on these boards, the Métis may be lost within the current offer. We live in the region with the Treaty 8 Dene, but we are two distinct people. We are related and share the same land, but we are distinctive. The Dene see us as a distinct people, and we see them as distinct. We recognize them, and we respect one another. However, the minister has invited us to set forth a nominee for our particular territory, and the minister has also asked Treaty 8 to set forth a nominee, one of which will be appointed to the board. It may not be Métis. It may be a Dene appointment. Where are the South Slave Métis, and where is the obligation that Canada has to consult with us on our own lands?
We see this as very problematic. The idea of the 50-50 board structure, in our mind, should not have survived to this stage. The integrated management regimes that are contemplated in the proposed legislation should be more progressive and reflective of today's approach, which is intergovernmental. Respect the Métis government. Respect the Dogrib government. Respect the Deh Cho government. Recognize us as who we are. We are collective; we are not interests. We are nations of people, and we have a right to be recognized. We have our own governments. We have a right to represent our territory and our people with a government representative to an intergovernmental agency.
That is the approach we would like to take. We do not mind sitting down with people and looking at integrating decisions on a larger area, but we need to be there with respect for one another -- not pulled into this stew with the minister holding the ladle. We would much rather keep the look of a banquet, where we are all respected for what we are. That would contribute to this country, make it a better place, and make it look better.
It would be best if this act did not apply in our region until we finish our lands and resources negotiations, and our self-government negotiations. If we apply it now, before we are finished these negotiations, we must come back and change things. We must come back and redo the work. No one can say right now how much work that will be. The results of the negotiations on self-government will bring more complications and problems. This disrespect that seems to be coming from the agencies in pushing this is not at all helpful to negotiations, or to good political relations.
As an interim measure, we would recommend that the aboriginal representation to the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board be increased so that no aboriginal group is lost in the shuffle. The same applies to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.
We have many concerns. Our advice is on record, but our consent has yet to be given. We do not see the proposed legislation as being in the proper shape to respect the Métis. We are friends, and friends should be treated with respect. If that is not the case, we need to speak out about it, and that is why we are here.
We have been consulted twice now, and that is not enough. There is a certain standard that Canada must live up to when it comes to consultation with aboriginal people. It must be meaningful, and that has not occurred. The Gwich'in and Sahtu had some very meaningful consultation. I doubt that that would have happened if had not had a land claims agreement that required that consultation. We do not have a land claim agreement yet that requires consultation. Perhaps that is why we have not been consulted.
Let us try to provide enough time for these land claims agreements which are under way right now. The Dobrib agreement is under way; we are under way. Things are rolling along and progressing quite well in the Mackenzie Valley. Let us allow enough time for these processes to continue, and to arrive at the arrangements that should be in place for our particular territory. Let us arrive at that, and then have something to work with. If we do that, we will not have the complications of having to go back and fix things after the negotiations are complete.
In closing, there is no pressing crisis right now to undertake this type of action. The current regime, while not perfect, will accomplish the job over the next while. Through the interim resource management program, the minister is doing more consultation with the groups involved in negotiations that do not have settled agreements. We are getting involved in a more significant way in examining the proposals for development, and the impacts on our region. At this stage, we are satisfied with that. It is a good interim measure. We do not need to take more drastic actions, because there is no call to do so.
Let us be more concerned about the relationship between Métis and Canadians, between our governments and yours, and not worry so much about environmental issues that may arise. We can handle them when they come up. This is proposed legislation; it is not in effect yet. Until now, we have been managing to address any environmental concerns effectively.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing with an excellent, non-academic, straightforward presentation that makes sense.
The Delgamuukw case is a major change. As a British Columbian, I am concerned about that, but my concerns are different than yours. I do not think that the judges who made that decision have ever been to British Columbia.
This whole thing seems to be predicated and driven by the fact that the Gwich'in and the Sahtu have arrived at an agreement, and now the government feels compelled to push forward aggressively with this legislation.
Subclause 35(b) states:
(b) special attention shall be devoted to the rights of the Gwich'in and Sahtu First Nations under their land claim agreements...
I, too, would be concerned if I were in your position. The officials themselves came here in good faith, and I have no doubt that they are operating in good faith. They said that the whole bill was drafted based on these two agreements. They raised the agreements in the meeting here last week.
You have more experience at this than we do. How do you think we could delay this thing?
Mr. Kurszewski: You might be wrong on that point. You may have more experience dealing with this type of thing here in Ottawa.
I understand that this is late in the day. This bill has gone through the House of Commons, and is here in the Senate. I do not know this process very well, but I think it is a political decision, as opposed to a technical one. It is a political decision for the government to make. The government must balance the interests of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu, who have written obligations in their agreements, and the interests of a bigger population that has not settled its affairs in the Mackenzie Valley. If you were to look at the map, you would see that the Gwich'in and Sahtu area makes up, at the most, one-third of the Mackenzie Valley. The other two-thirds of the people in the valley will fall under this proposal too, however.
If this act were to apply to the entire Mackenzie Valley, my understanding is that it would not apply to the Inuvaluit. The Gwich'in and Sahtu argue that they are downstream, but the Inuvaluit are even further downstream from the Gwich'in territory. There are some funny things about this situation.
Senator St. Germain: I agree it is mostly politically driven, but my hope is that it is not partisan.
I read somewhere that the Gwich'in and the Sahtu represent only about 25 per cent of the population. The other 75 per cent of the population affected by this bill is saying that, although it will have representation, the preferential treatment given to the other two groups destroys the good faith of future negotiations.
Is there anything else that would give us ammunition to delay until your land claims settlements are negotiated? I am looking for something that we, as a committee, could sit down and deal with in a non-partisan and logical way, in the best interests of all the people in that part of the Northwest Territories. That is the only way that we will do this.
When government bills come through the House of Commons, they come to us. Hopefully, this is not a partisan bill. The government has agendas and obligations, and they have to govern. However, mistakes can be made. Sometimes the government must change direction. As a matter of fact, there is an issue on the front page of the newspaper right now where consideration must be taken.
Can you give me any information that I can take to our chairman, who always operates in the best interests of the aboriginal people?
Mr. Kurszewski: We have covered most of it. There is an obligation to the aboriginal people who do not have settled land claims agreements. That has not been taken into account. It is quite obvious that a large preference has been given to the Gwich'in and Sahtu.
We have talked about this internally, and about how to handle it. It speaks to troubled times ahead. The reason we are in this position today is because the Gwich'in threatened legal action a year or two back. They were not able to set up what they wanted, and what they were promised in their land claims agreements. They took this action because the regional boards they set up to look after their territory were not given proper powers by the Government of Canada with respect to an integrated Mackenzie Valley board. That integrated board has more power, and these regional boards are advisory to the larger board.
The government could have recognized those regional boards, and asked for more advice from them. In terms of their territory, it could have could have given them more clout while this integrated regime was on hold. It could still do that. The Gwich'in and Sahtu boards that are already set up can be further empowered, and responsibility for their territory can be delegated to them, to a higher level than the land claims agreements speak to. Instead of taking that route, which would have satisfied the Gwich'in -- there would have been no court case, no legal threat, and no emergency or crisis -- the officials and the agencies involved said that we could not make any of the proper management decisions that we wanted to make, because this integrated regime was not in place. Until it is in place, they said that we would not get any more authority, and we would not have any more influence. It was tantamount to saying "sue us, and then we will bring in the measures."
In my view, that is not the proper way to do this. More consideration should have been given to the greater portion of aboriginal peoples in the Mackenzie Valley. I believe that this issue should have been on a better timetable, and the Gwich'in and Sahtu should be given a little more authority for their territory while waiting for the integrated regime. That is all that they wanted. They are not crazy about having an integrated regime for the sake of having an integrated regime. Their authority within their territory is of concern to them, as is their role in deciding issues.
Senator Chalifoux: Did government personnel do any community consultations on this bill?
Mr. Kurszewski: As far as I can recollect, no community consultations have been done. There were some attempts at having information sessions a few years back, one of which I attended. That is the extent of the consultation that was attempted.
Senator Chalifoux: Did you, or any of your organizations, have community consultations with your membership regarding this bill? Was anything mentioned at an assembly?
Mr. Kurszewski: We have had our own discussions on this issue.
Attached to our presentation you will find Resolution #05. This resolution was passed at our annual assembly in Fort Smith in January of this year, and it speaks to the bill. The assembly condemns the proposed legislation in its present form for the various reasons identified, and mandates that communication be made to the minister to follow through on those feelings.
Senator Chalifoux: What was your opinion of the discussions held before this resolution was passed by the Métis in the South Slave?
Mr. Kurszewski: People were very offended by this type of action. It seemed that one hand of the federal government was not synchronized with the other. On the one hand, we are into negotiations on our own land and resources, our own management regimes, and all these matters that are within the bill. On the other hand, something is being imposed with another design. There was much confusion about what this was imposing on our process. We were concerned that the negotiations would be a charade with a predetermined conclusion. In December, our people took much offence at the fact that many of our concerns were not taken to heart by the standing committee.
Senator Chalifoux: What definition of Métis do you use? Is it similar to the definition of the Métis National Council?
Mr. Kurszewski: I am not familiar with the definition used by the Métis National Council. Our definition is very straightforward and simple. It includes anyone of mixed Indian and non-Indian blood who is not a status Indian.
Senator Andreychuk:It seems to me that the issue is that the government has found itself between an obligation to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu, and a responsibility to keep consulting and resolving land claim issues. Everything else results from that.
Have you approached the Sahtu and the Gwich'in nations, and asked for their support to delay this? Yours has been the first proposal we have heard on how they can continue to deal with their concerns and their needs without stepping on your needs. Have you approached them? If so, were they receptive to the delay that you are proposing?
Mr. Kurszewski: I have approached the Gwich'in on a couple of occasions on this matter, as long as four years ago. We were outside the room at that time, and we knew there was something going on in the room. I was told that it was the only way that they could have authority over their territory, in the absence of recognition by the government of their regional boards.
When I presented them with my concerns about this process, they presented me with their problem, so we understood one another. They told me that their regional boards were not effective, and that they could not do what they needed to. This was because they were part of the integrated regime of a larger authority, which would ultimately give them the type of decision making that they wanted. Of course I asked them why they could not get that. They said that Ottawa would not allow it.
That is why, in response to Senator St. Germain, I mentioned that it is a political decision. Ottawa can indeed, outside of a land claim agreement, recognize the legitimate management authorities that aboriginal people should have in their territory. The government could also, perhaps, recognize a higher level of management authority than it does in the land claims agreement from the 1980s.
If that were the case, the Gwich'in and Sahtu would not be pushing for this time frame. I believe that they would hold off on trying to have this integrated regime in place before our land claims agreements, and lands and resources agreements, are finalized.
Senator Andreychuk: You think that the government has a way out?
Mr. Kurszewski: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: Have you put that proposal directly to the government, and have you recently discussed it directly with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu?
Mr. Kurszewski: I have discussed it with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu in the past year. The Gwich'in have indicated that they do not think that it is in the cards. They think this is their only way. They do not see the government doing what I think that it should do. There seems to be a matter of pride involved here as well. They negotiated an agreement in good faith, and extinguished their rights under that agreement. They expect something in return, which has not been delivered. They feel that that it should be delivered to them.
That provision in their agreement reaches into our regions, and that causes a problem. However, I sympathize with them, because what they agreed upon has not been delivered to them. They deserve to have what they were promised, because they gave up a lot to get it.
They have indicated to me that they see no other way of achieving their goal. They are locked between a rock and a hard place.
Senator Andreychuk: You say that the government appears to be letting the Gwich'in and the Sahtu down. If we were to side with you and delay this, do you think that the Sahtu and the Gwich'in would consider that we have let them down as well?
Mr. Kurszewski: If it were just a stark decision based on that example, they probably would. Attached to your report, there would have to be a recommendation that the government recognize more authority for those regional boards until the integrated management regime is set up. That is really what they want. They want control of their territory, and they are not getting it because of this integrated regime.
Senator Forest: Gentlemen, you have made a compelling argument. I think you put it correctly when you said that the government is between a rock and a hard place, as you obviously are.
You hope to have these land claims settled within the next year or two?
Mr. Kurszewski: Yes.
Senator Forest: If this act were passed, but the provisions did not apply to areas outside those with land claim settlements, that would resolve part of your concerns. You would still have concerns about the make-up of the boards and such things?
Mr. Kurszewski: That is true. It might, in fact resolve the matter as it presently affects us, because someone else would not be making decisions within our territory on our behalf. On the other hand, the nature of the boards is something which must be given a great deal of thought. The 50-50 public boards are an old concept, designed for a particular purpose under the extinguishment policy, which no longer exists. In my view, in fact, that may be an illegal step to take. In any case, there is no requirement for extinguishment right now.
As well, with the other legal precedents being set, the management agencies or tools which are available to aboriginal people are of a different type than getting together on a 50-50 board under a minister.
Senator Forest: I appreciate the fact that you do not want legislation applying to your territory before your land claims are settled. However, I am sure you appreciate that the Gwich'in and the Sahtu are concerned about an integrated program because, as they mentioned, they are at the end of the line. You make the point that they are not really at the end of the line.
We are concerned about development in the Mackenzie Valley, and ensuring that the environment is protected. That is another reason for which we are concerned about an integrated system that would take care of the environment, and ensure that any development that comes along will make environmental sense.
Do you have any comment?
Mr. Kurszewski: At the moment, the biggest environmental threat is the development of pulp mills in northern Alberta.What does this legislation do about that?
Senator Forest: You make a good point. As an Albertan, I appreciate that. We have been fighting these things for years, and we are not getting anywhere.
Senator Adams: Are there any problems between the North Slave Métis Alliance and the South Slave Métis Tribal Council? In terms of the land claim, I see that the two share some borders. Has everything been settled between the two in terms of boundaries? As well, are there any problems with other nations which share your borders?
Mr. Kurszewski: There are no problems between us and those with whom we share our borders. At the present time, the Métis and the Dogribs can hunt anywhere in the Northwest Territories. We go into Dogrib territory to hunt caribou. We are an education centre. Therefore, those who come into our part of the territory can hunt there. We do not mind that. Aboriginal people should be able to hunt for food anywhere in the country, and we respect that. Over the years, we have built up a good understanding, and a long tradition of sharing resources and lands, especially when it comes to hunting and fishing. We do not really run into border problems on those matters.
Senator Adams: In terms of buffalo, do you have any hunting quotas?
Mr. Kurszewski: In our part of the country there are no quotas on buffalo. However, because we are proud of the fact that we have buffalo to hunt, we are diligent about how hunting takes place. In terms of hunting, the threat to the buffalo has not been from aboriginal hunters, but from hunters who come in from out of the territory. This is a practice which borders on being illegal.
Senator Adams: What is the situation of commercial fishing in Slave Lake? I recall that there was once a fish plant at Hay River.
Mr. Kurszewski: My president sits on the Great Slave Lake Advisory Board, which concerns itself with commercial fishing and the use of fish. They have run into problems once in a while, and he can explain that to you.
Senator Adams: Are there any quotas in the area among the Métis, the North Slave and the South Slave?
Mr. Harrington: The whole of Great Slave Lake is marked off into different areas. Area 6 is not fished at all, and is controlled by quotas. Right now, the most heavily fished area is 1West, which flows into the Mackenzie River. The quota is usually always taken there. In the rest of the areas, the quota is not taken. In the last year or so, whitefish prices have dropped. Therefore, there is not a big demand for whitefish. The fishermen are not going out, and the quotas are not being taken.
Our fishery is in really good shape. Whitefish from Great Slave Lake are classified in the top grade of fish in the Canadian market. That is something we like to advertise every chance we get.
Our biggest concern is with contaminants coming down from the pulp mills on Slave River. This bill does not address any of those issues.
Senator Adams: Before boundaries were set, I believe you were concerned with the caribou area in the eastern part of your territory, which is shared with Nunavut. Has everything now been settled with the Nunavut?
Mr. Kurszewski: We have an overlap situation with the Inuit in Keewatin,but we do not have a problem. There has to be some type of boundary for jurisdictional purposes. In terms of harvesting, hunting and fishing, the Nunavut agreement recognizes our interest to continue to hunt in areas which we have hunted. In our agreement, we have a reciprocal rights clause, by which other aboriginal people recognize our right to hunt within their traditional territory. Therefore, we can hunt in each other's territory.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. We will advise you of our conclusions. We still have to hear from nine witnesses.
Senator Adams: There was mention of the Inuvialuit area. Will we hear any witnesses from Inuvialuit?
The Chairman: We do not have any on the list at the moment.
Senator Adams: Have you heard anything about Inuvialuit and their concerns about Bill C-6? I know that another bill is coming to us in the future about the caribou carving area.
Mr. Kurszewski: I was surprised to find this out, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but Bill C-6 does not apply to Inuvialuit territory. This Mackenzie Valley act was supposedly to cover the western Arctic, the western territory. I do not know why it does not apply to the Inuvialuit territory. This seems extremely strange. The whole idea was to have an integrated regime which would apply to the whole watershed. The Inuvialuit territory is a large part of the watershed. They have the delta, where everything empties into the Beaufort Sea.
The reasoning has not been explained to me. I do not want to say that it is wrong. I do not want to say anything about it, but it would be worthwhile to examine it, and to find out the reasons for it.
Senator Adams: The whales migrate there every year around Tuktoyaktuk. In the future, that area could be affected by pollution coming in through the Mackenzie Delta. Thank you.
The committee continued in camera.