Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 23 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 13, 2001
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to which was referred Bill C-39, to replace the Yukon Act in order to modernize it and to implement certain provisions of the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement, and to repeal and make amendments to other Acts, met this day at 3:31 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. Ms Muir from the Yukon Territorial Government is our first witness before the committee to present in respect of Yukon devolution. Ms Muir, please proceed.
Ms Pamela Muir, Legal Counsel, Yukon Territorial Government: Honourable senators, I thank the committee for having the opportunity to appear before you today. I would like to clarify that I am appearing as legal counsel for the Yukon government. Premier Duncan sends her regards to the committee.
I will provide a technical overview of the Bill C-39 and the Devolution Transfer Agreement from the Yukon government's perspective and to convey the interests of the Government of the Yukon in seeing this bill passed by Parliament.
I note as well that, when the committee reconvenes in February, the Yukon government would certainly be prepared to - and would want to - appear to answer any political questions, or if there are other technical questions that arise in the interim. We want to be clear about that.
Bill C-39 recognizes the evolution of governance in the territory over the last century and it provides the framework for the devolution of natural resources in the territory from Canada to the Yukon government.
The Government of Canada worked closely with the Government of Yukon and with First Nations in the territory to develop this bill. The Yukon government very much appreciates the opportunity to participate in that process.
In the bill, there are some compromises that were struck, and it is the Yukon government's view that these compromises are fair and were made by all of the parties.
The primary reason for the Yukon government's support of Bill C-39 is that it enables devolution, i.e., the transfer of resource management responsibilities that are now held by Canada, to the Yukon government. Bill C-39 provides the Yukon government with the administration and control of public lands, the resources found in and on those lands, such as forests and minerals, and the rights in respect of waters. Technically, it is the Commissioner of the Yukon who possesses this power and acts in accordance with the instructions of the Executive Council and the territorial legislation. For convenience, I will refer to it as "the Yukon."
The Northern Affairs Program of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is currently responsible for lands and resource management issues in the Yukon. With devolution, the programs and services that NAP now offers will be offered by the Yukon government in substantially the same form, immediately following devolution.
The Yukon government will also have the administration and control over water rights in the Yukon, with the exception of water found in areas such as national parks and other federal conservation areas, and control over most of the public lands consistent with the principle of local control. Some public lands, such as national parks, Indian reserves and some smaller specific sites that are used by federal departments, will remain with Canada. That list of exclusions is set out in detail in the devolution agreement and will be set out under an order under the new bill as well.
It is worth noting that settlement land of First Nations is unaffected by the bill, because those lands are not "public lands" within the meaning of that expression. Those lands are owned by the First Nations and are unaffected by Bill C-39.
With increased control, comes increased responsibility. If I may quote the premier, she recently commented:
Yukon politicians will be accountable for decisions that are made. This represents a huge step forward, and will be welcomed by Yukon legislators and those who do business with the Yukon government. Local control allows for more responsive management, and that, in turn, is expected to increase economic and social development in the territory.
The passage of Bill C-39 will not change the Yukon's constitutional status: it will continue to be a territory. The public lands and rights in respect of waters remain vested with Her Majesty in Right of Canada. That is clear on the face of the bill. In the event of a conflict, a federal law will continue to prevail over a territorial law, which is the current status.
Moreover, the passage of the bill will not in and of itself affect any existing rights in the Yukon. Rather, the passage of the bill will turn over the administration and control of the resources from one government to another government. With that, the Yukon government will have the authority to manage the resources in the future. Local politicians will be responsible to those who elect them.
The second reason the Yukon government supports the passage of the bill is that it modernizes the language and reflects the current system of responsible government in the territory. For example, it changes the name of Territorial Council to Legislative Assembly and it reflects the reality of the elected institutions in the Yukon. Indeed, the preamble of the bill recognizes the evolution of responsible government.
There is also a new five-year mandate for the legislative assembly. That is consistent with the Charter and with the practice in the provinces. The territorial residents will have the same relationship with their politicians as residents of provinces do.
I would like to say a few words about protection of First Nations rights and interests in the bill and in the devolution agreement. First Nations' interests are protected in both documents. It is worth noting that in 1998, Canada, the Yukon and First Nations signed a devolution protocol accord that provided for the negotiation of the devolution agreement and the negotiation of Northern Affairs Programming Service Transfer Agreements with First Nations as well. It further provided that that those two processes would happen concurrently.
For the following two and one-half years, negotiation of the devolution agreement took place among Canada, Yukon, and the First Nations of the Yukon. That included the 14 Yukon First Nations, 11 of whom are represented by the Council for Yukon First Nations, the Kwanlin Dun First Nation, the two Yukon Kaska Nations - Liard and Ross River - and the Kaska Dena Council.
The DTA is a contractual document and contains several non-derogation clauses that are inserted to make it clear that nothing in that agreement is intended to abrogate or derogate from protections provided for Aboriginal people in the Constitution of Canada, or to derogate from any other obligations that may be owed by the Crown to Aboriginal people.
It also confirms the mutual intent of parties to conclude as a matter of the highest priority negotiation of outstanding land claims within the policies and mandates available to government for that purpose.
The devolution agreement confirms that the legislature of the Yukon will have no greater powers than a province in respect of Indians and lands reserved for the Indians, which is the heading of Canada's power under section 91.24 of the Constitution.
There are a couple of exceptions to that, mostly dealing with settlement agreements. First Nations supported those kinds of exceptions, as it will ensure that the Yukon government is in a position to implement the obligation it is takes on under land claims. This limitation on the legislature's power is included in the Yukon Act as that is the source of the legislative power of the Yukon.
In respect to First Nations having unsettled land claims in the Yukon, as at devolution, the agreement also provides that agreed upon settlement of land selections will be withdrawn from disposal for a five-year period, or until settlement agreement is in place, whichever is earlier. It also provides for possibility of renewal of those orders beyond the five-year time frame, as well.
The devolution agreement provides a communications protocol for First Nations having unsettled claims to engage the Yukon government, senior officials and politicians in meaningful dialogue where First Nations are of the view that their rights are being affected by policies or decisions taken by the government. The DTA also provides that following the devolution, the Yukon government will involve First Nations in policy reviews where the policy under review by the government is one that may have an effect on Aboriginal rights of First Nations.
Some specific benefits provided to First Nations by the devolution agreement include the commitment by the Yukon government to provide forest fire suppression services on settlement lands following devolution within financial resources and policies available for that purpose. First Nations and the Yukon government have also agreed to co-operatively develop a forced sector fund to manage funds that Yukon government will receive from Canada in support of the forest sector in the Yukon Territory.
Finally, there are some specific benefits set out for First Nations who sign on to the devolution agreement regarding the involvement in the development of future territorial legislation that deals with the resources that are being devolved.
The primary source of protection for Aboriginal rights of the Aboriginal people of Canada is found in our Constitution. The Yukon Act does not and cannot affect those rights or protections. There is a non-derogation clause included in the Yukon Act that is intended to be declaratory of protections that already exist in the Constitution. It is not intended to enhance or derogate from either the protection provided by section 35 or any other protection that may be in the Constitution for Aboriginal rights.
Bill C-39 also contains provisions whereby Canada could, for the reasons specified in the bill, take back land from the Yukon or prohibit the issuance by the Yukon of interests in the lands. One of the enumerated reasons for such action on the part of Canada is the settlement or implementation of a land claims agreement.
A significant compromise in the bill worth noting involves the power of the commissioner to act on instructions from the federal minister. This power, which is in the current Yukon Act, is carried over to the new bill, but has a 10-year expiry, or sunset clause, that applies to it. The Yukon government, in supporting the inclusion of this clause, acknowledges the emotional attachment of First Nations to that clause for the comfort that it provides to them. However, the inclusion of a 10-year expiry was felt to be fair and would provide the opportunity for all land claims to be settled by that time. The Yukon government would have preferred that power to be abolished immediately, but the 10-year repeal, as I said, seemed to the Yukon government a fair compromise on the point.
Another compromise that was reached is that the intended effective date for devolution and for the coming into force of Bill C-39 is April 1, 2003. This time frame was agreed upon in order to allow for the conclusion and ratification of outstanding land claims in the Yukon.
The notion that devolution would not occur in traditional territories of First Nations with unsettled claims has been raised as a possible model, but the staged implementation of devolution would be legally and practically very difficult - if not impossible - to achieve. With the signing of the accord in 1998, the notion was that devolution and land claims could proceed concurrently.
Land claim negotiations are ongoing in the Yukon, with six Yukon First Nations as well as with respect to the trans-boundary Kaska Dena Council. As part of these negotiations, it is significant to note that settlement land selections for First Nations have been withdrawn from disposition. For example, the two Yukon members of the Kaska Dena are entitled to 9,455 square kilometres of settlement land in the Yukon as set out in our umbrella final agreement, which is the framework document for negotiation claims. Ninety-eight per cent of Liard First Nations quantum has been withdrawn and 102 per cent of Ross River's land quantum has been withdrawn from disposition.
That is an overview of the types of protections for First Nations set out in the bill and in the devolution agreement.
Turning briefly to other issues, the public consultation of the Yukon Act was an important part of its development. Bill C-39 captures much of what was proposed in these public consultations that the Yukon government undertook. However, there are several issues that were raised by the Special Commission on the Yukon Act in 1999 that have not been addressed.
For example, some do see a problem with title for the resources remaining vested in Her Majesty in Right of Canada. The Yukon government does not see a problem. It is recognized that having administration and control with the right to the beneficial use of lands and resources gives the Yukon all of the benefits one would expect with ownership without the need to resolve the question of ownership at this time.
It is important to note that when Alberta and Saskatchewan were first carved out of the Northwest Territories, neither had control over their natural resources though they were provinces, until the 1930s. Having administration and control without provincial title is a better choice for the Yukon at this point of its development. In addition, the Yukon government is not interested in constitutional or legal wrangling over this issue at this time.
Another issue that has been raised is the offshore boundary of the Yukon, which is unchanged from the present Yukon Act.
The Yukon government never intended to deal with the issue of the off-shore boundary through this process. Instead, the Yukon government is pursuing economic and jurisdictional issues over the off-shore through other means. In particular, under the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord, an off-shore committee has been struck, and work is under way to operationalize that committee, which will deal with those issues.
The main challenge of devolution that the Yukon government will face is risk management. Yukon is much smaller than the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and has a smaller financial capacity to deal with catastrophic events. However, the DTA provides for risk-sharing on fire suppression with Canada for a limited period of time. It also provides for the ability to review a few key financial arrangements, such as environmental clean-up measures and net fiscal benefit calculations. The Yukon government can also, through the Formula Financing Agreement with Canada, apply for federal assistance in the event of extraordinary circumstances beyond its fiscal means.
The Devolution Transfer Agreement also provides that the Yukon government is able to retain up to $3 million annually in revenues raised from the resources, without any affect on the formula grant. Any excess over $3 million would reduce the formula. It is important to note that, under chapter 23 of our Yukon First Nation Final Agreement, there is an obligation on the Yukon government - not on Canada but on Yukon - to share any resource revenues the Yukon government receives with First Nations of the territory, according to the formula set out in that chapter. When the Yukon government begins to receive these resource revenues, some of them will be shared with First Nations in accordance with the final agreements.
Another challenge the Yukon government will face is in regard to human resources. Job offers will be made to all indeterminate Northern Affairs Program employees in the Yukon. The Yukon government is interested in having a majority of those employees accept those job offers. The Yukon government will need staff, familiar with the federal system, on board to ensure a seamless transfer. Considerable work has already been done on these matters through a transitional committee and a joint staffing strategy with the federal Yukon regional office in Whitehorse.
Bill C-39 will serve as a modern Constitution for the Yukon, providing as it does for the establishment of basic institutions of public authority, the powers possessed by the institutions and the processes to be followed. In addition, there is a new requirement for Canada to consult with the Yukon government on future amendments to the Yukon Act. That is significant, because this document is the Constitution of the Yukon Territory.
There has been a political evolution over the past 20 years in the Yukon. Recent court decisions recognize that as seen in a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Fédération Franco-Ténoise v. Canada case, whereby the court of appeal recognized explicitly that the territorial government is a responsible government separate and apart from Canada. With the ability to administer and control lands and resources, the Yukon government, in the future, will be able to revise management resource legislation to allow for comprehensive, consistent approaches that reflect the values and the wishes of the residents of the Yukon.
With that, I thank you for the opportunity to appear. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Spivak: I have one question. I had the opportunity of meeting with the premier and there were questions that were ironed out. Do you have any reservations about the fact that excess resource revenue will reduce the annual grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis? We know there are provinces that are not particularly happy with that arrangement. How does the government feel about that?
Ms Muir: The devolution agreement includes a mandatory review at the end of five years with respect to that sharing arrangement. There can be ongoing reviews where that is agreed. There is an opportunity to revisit that sharing formula in the event that circumstances change.
Senator Spivak: Is that the case with all of the other provinces and territories? Is the review a special dispensation?
Ms Muir: The territorial financing arrangements are quite different from the provincial ones. However, I am certainly no expert in that respect. If you would like further information on that subject, I can undertake to obtain that for you.
Senator Spivak: My other question relates to the off-shore Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord and an Interim Off-shore Committee that is looking at exploration and development. Is that the purpose of that committee? Is that what the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord is all about?
Ms Muir: The accord was struck in 1993 and primarily dealt with the transfer of oil and gas resources on the mainland of Yukon to the Yukon government. It did not deal with off-shore, except to set out an undertaking that there would be a committee struck to look at off-shore oil and gas issues. I believe that that committee is in the initial stages.
Senator Spivak: What is the mandate of the committee? Is the mandate of the committee to look at exploration? Is the mandate of that committee to assess exploration and the relevant environmental issues? What is the mandate of that committee?
Ms Muir: At this point, the mandate, based on what is in the accord, is very general. I am not sure what details they have hammered out and what their specific mandate is.
Senator Spivak: I understand that this bill does not deal with that issue.
Ms Muir: It does not, at all.
Senator Spivak: That is not relevant to this.
Ms Muir: That is correct.
Senator Finnerty: I worked for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for a long time, and we were hopeful that something would happen in the future. I am pleased that it is coming to fruition.
In respect of the Kaska Nation, what is the status of these negotiations on their claims? Are they not in B.C.?
Ms Muir: There are two Yukon Kaska Nations. Those two First Nations are actively involved in the negotiations in respect of their claims in the Yukon, currently. The Kaska Dena Council is the Northern British Columbia group. They are also involved actively in the negotiation of their trans-boundary claim into the Yukon. Those negotiations are taking place at the same table with the other Yukon Kaska Nations.
There were negotiations of the Kaska Dena Council's primary claim in British Columbia, though I cannot really say where those negotiations are at in British Columbia.
The Chairman: To clarify that, were the Kaska Nation and the other First Nation in on the devolution agreement during the negotiating?
Ms Muir: Yes, all First Nations, including the Kaskas, were at the table negotiating the devolution agreement and were at our working group developing Bill C-39, though I would clarify that they did not sign the devolution agreement.
Senator Finnerty: That was my next question. When do you think that might happen?
Ms Muir: The devolution agreement has been signed by Canada and the Yukon government. A provision was inserted at the request of the Council of Yukon First Nations that it enable any First Nation who was a party to the negotiations, to sign on to the agreement at any time up until its effective date. Therefore, at any time up to April 1, 2003 - assuming that the intended date is the effective date - they can sign on at any time, and they can become a party to the devolution agreement.
The Chairman: You have given them some time to become a part of the agreement. Why did you pick that particular time? As you know, at the speed at which our federal lawyers have been working with Aboriginal land claims, you should be talking about centuries rather than years.
Ms Muir: There is always hope. Most of the First Nations in the Yukon are quite close to having their claims settled. Of the CYFN First Nations, seven of the 11 are concluded. The eighth has been ratified and will become effective, I would think,April 1, 2002. That would be eight of the 11. Three CYFN First Nations and the two Kaska First Nations, all of whom are negotiating actively, hope that by 2003 these claims would be substantially completed or certainly any land-related issues would be completed.
Senator Banks: I will ask a question of you, which may not be appropriate to ask, but I have been asking it of witnesses about a variety of bills in which the non-derogation clause appears. Do you know what I mean when I say the new non-derogation clause?
Ms Muir: Yes, I do.
Senator Banks: I have had five or six different and interesting answers as to what the difference is between the old non-derogation clause and the new non-derogation clause. Would you tell us your views of that, please?
Ms Muir: I would be happy to comment. It is important to note perhaps as an opening remark that we are of the view that the non-derogation clause is not intended to add anything. It is intended to be declaratory of existing protections that the Constitution already contains. That is an important opening premise.
Section 35 of the Constitution provides protections for existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. The courts have said the protections are there. However, in certain limited circumstances, in accordance with the tests set out by the court, government can infringe, justifiably, Aboriginal or treaty rights in certain circumstances. That is sort of the section 35 paradigm.
Senator Banks: Those would have to do with what, for example.
Ms Muir: The kinds of infringements?
Senator Banks: Yes.
Ms Muir: A two-part test was generally set out in the case of Sparrow. There must be a legitimate government objective to be achieved by the measure in question. The way in which the objective is implemented must uphold the honour of the Crown. That second part of the test involves things such to what extent the Aboriginal group was consulted and what involvement do they have in the measure. There are a number of different kinds of tests.
Most of the cases to date have dealt with hunting or fishing rights and in what circumstances can conservation measures instituted by government be applied to limit Aboriginal harvesting where there is a conservation issue at stake. That is the kind of analysis the court has done.
Senator Banks: I am sorry, I am ignorant in this area, and I wish to understand it. For example, if there is an incontestable treaty right to fish and hunt, that right could be to some degree limited or abrogated in a larger interest that would have to be shown before a court, or might be subject to adjudication?
Ms Muir: In the context of treaty rights, it may be somewhat more complicated because it could depend on what the treaty itself says. In some circumstances, the treaties may set out a slightly different rule.
If we are talking about an Aboriginal right, for example, yes, that is correct. If there is an Aboriginal right established to hunt or fish, in certain limited circumstances the courts have found that could be infringed if the test is met.
Senator Banks: That might be for ecological reasons or have to do with sustainable management?
Ms Muir: It is usually a conservation issue. That is the way in which the courts have interpreted section 35. We put in a non-derogation clause that attempts to flag for the reader that there is protection set out in the Constitution for Aboriginal treaty rights. Do not forget about those.
The challenge is trying to find wording that simply is nothing more than a flag, it does not add anything substantive, nor does it take away anything that is in the Constitution.
Senator Banks: Is there a difference in your view between the two, the old and the new non-derogation clauses, that could be described in the following way with any accuracy: That the old one applied to group rights and the new one applies to individual rights? Is that a reasonable distinction?
Ms Muir: That is not a distinction of which I have ever thought.
This is all fairly new law. With the introduction of section 35 in 1982, it has taken some time for the courts to develop the jurisprudence around it. It has taken some time for the court to determine what it means and how to apply it. That is still very much an ongoing process.
With that in mind, I think that the wording of the old non-derogation clause perhaps arguably had the effect of adding protection. It is not acting simply as a flag for a protection that is in the Constitution, but it could possibly be seen as enhancing that protection.
The new language was an attempt to be more precise about what the non-derogation clause is trying to do.
Senator Banks: Do you agree that it is also to make clear that those treaty rights or Charter rights may, from time to time, in certain circumstances, be limited?
Ms Muir: No, in my view, that proposition comes from section 35 and the interpretation that the courts have put on that section and how they have interpreted the protection that section 35 provides.
The new derogation clause simply says that whatever that protection is, we are not derogating from it. We look to the Constitution to see what the protection is.
Senator Banks: Are you saying that the new wording was not, in your view, a reaction to the courts' interpretation that those rights could, to some extent and in some circumstances, be limited?
Ms Muir: Of course, it is federal legislation. However, given my understanding of our discussions at the working group with justice lawyers and in the whole milieu of the negotiation, that was never raised. I have never heard that raised.
Senator Banks: You said earlier that the Aboriginal peoples who would be affected by this treaty had all been consulted in the process of drafting it. Were there any serious reservations in your view expressed by any of them with respect to the wording of the new non-derogation clause?
Ms Muir: I want to be careful about speaking on behalf of anyone else.
Senator Banks: Frame it in your experience.
Ms Muir: My understanding is that this new wording was discussed with all of the parties - all of the First Nations - and they were all content with that wording as it relates to section 35 protection. To be as fair as possible, though, the Kaska First Nation raised a concern, but it was not related to that wording and section 35. They want to have another non-derogation clause put into the Yukon Act.
Senator Banks: Do you mean an additional one or a different one?
Ms Muir: They want an additional one.
Senator Banks: Why?
Ms Muir: It is hard to necessarily state what their argument is, but I believe their view is that there may be other protections in the Constitution for the rights of Aboriginal people, other than those found in section 35. They would want some kind of a reference to, perhaps, the other protections that may be in the Constitution. That would be their reservation about that.
Senator Sibbeston: I welcome the Yukon delegation. I know Mr. Funston, who used to be in the Northwest Territories. I am generally very supportive of the measures to update and advance responsible government in the North. I was involved much of my life in the Northwest Territories dealing with responsible government.
When I became involved in 1970, the federal government was in charge of the North through an appointed commissioner. Through the years, we struggled, because responsible government never comes easy. You have to fight and struggle for it. Through time, we were able to take over programs and responsibilities that the federal government had. Now, the territories and the Yukon are responsible in terms of governing themselves and I am sympathetic to the cause and to the amendments that are before us, which will advance Yukon's government state.
I want to ask you about the derogation clause. I appreciate that the Yukon government did not insert, or provide, the wording that is contained in clause 3. That was done by officials from Indian and Northern Affairs and from the Justice Department.
However, I have become aware that since 1996 there has been a change in the wording of the non-derogation clause, whereas before it was the wording in section 25, I believe, that constituted a non-derogation clause in a significant amount of federal legislation. Since then, there has been a change, and we noticed it. We just dealt with it in the Yukon bill, which is of concern to the Inuit.
Senator Adams: That was Nunavut.
Senator Sibbeston: Yes.
Senator Adams: You said Yukon.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to ask you about this, because you are constitutional lawyer. It is along the line of questioning of Senator Banks. In your view, does the non-derogation clause in any way diminish the rights that Aboriginal people have in the Constitution? Does it give the federal government an advantage to diminish the rights of Aboriginal peoples in the Yukon?
Ms Muir: In my view, it does not. At the end of the day, the Constitution is the supreme law. It is the provisions of the Constitution that will dictate what protections are provided and what measures government can or cannot take, regardless of what we put in Bill C-39. That would be my short answer. Perhaps Mr. Funston would like to respond.
Mr. Bernie Funston, Contractor, Yukon Territorial Government: I tend to agree with Ms Muir's analysis that the objective served by the clause is to maintain neutrality. An ordinary statute like the Yukon Act cannot amend the Constitution; this clause is included to make it clear that we did not intend to try to amend the Constitution, which we could not do in any case.
This clause is intended to maintain neutrality - raise a flag, as Ms Muir has said, and point properly to the Constitution as the authoritative section as the source for the protection of Aboriginal peoples. The key is the precision of the language and maintaining neutrality, and not tinkering with the interpretation. The interpretation is up to the courts, based on the rights that are protected. The case law, as Ms Muir has said, is evolving. This bill does not try to interfere with that in any way. To answer the senator's question, I agree with Ms Muir.
Senator Sibbeston: In my view, the words that were contained in many non-derogation clauses prior to 1996, are the wording of section 25, which states that the Charter shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal treaty or other rights and freedoms of Aboriginal people of Canada. There is just a very slight change. Now, the wording states: "...so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights..."
Unless you are very careful and knowledge in your work in this area, you may not notice the change or the distinction. However, the change is there. I am concerned that the Department of Justice, in particular, has amended or changed the wording since 1996 to provide a weaker non-derogation clause that somehow or another will cut into or diminish the Aboriginal people's rights. I am concerned about it. I appreciate that it is not you, necessarily, who would have had a great deal of involvement in this clause. Nevertheless, the situation in the Yukon is such that Aboriginal peoples are struggling, negotiating and attempting to set up their own jurisdictions and develop self-government. It is important that, while we all want to see Yukon advance, we do not want to see the abilities and rights of the Aboriginal people diminished. This is why I am focussing on this clause.
I appreciate that you are not responsible for this wording, but may I hear your comments again on this point?
Ms Muir: I have another point that may be worth making. I would reiterate that it is our view that regardless of what we said in the Yukon Act, we cannot influence the protection that section 35 provides. The attempt, through this clause, is simply to flag that there are those protections. It is not there in any way to enhance or to derogate from those protections.
I would note, as well, that, under our Yukon settlement legislation in the territory that gives effect to land claims and self-government agreements, the legislation specifically provides that that legislation and those agreements prevail over any other federal or territorial legislation. In the event that there is a conflict between a final agreement that is in place and the Yukon Act, for example, the final agreement would prevail. Those section 35 treaties in the Yukon prevail over any other legislation - federal or territorial. That is another protection built in for the First Nations that have agreements in effect.
For the First Nations that do not have agreements in effect, their protections would come from the protection of their Aboriginal rights under section 35. Again, I understand that you are concerned, and there is some comfort in knowing that the Yukon government certainly does not have any intention to derogate from whatever constitutional protections are provided for the Aboriginal people.
Senator Adams: Following on the questions of Senator Sibbeston and Senator Banks, the minister was here last Monday morning. He mentioned that other provinces really have nothing to do with the clause. He mentioned land claims in B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and some others. They are not concerned about the same clause as Nunavut.
We have a land claim agreement. The Prime Minister has signed it. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has signed it. The Indian Affairs minister has more power than the people in the community.
You mentioned the hunting rights. We have other bills coming in. Bill C-5 concerns hunting. We have been suffering since the 1970s with not being able to hunt seals any more. People in the community cannot trap any more because they could not afford it with the price of fur having gone done.
With Bill C-5 coming in, we will not be allowed to hunt whales. In the meantime, if a fisherman in Newfoundland or B.C. cannot hunt any more, they are compensated.
The government says that the Inuit are living off the land and have hunting rights for animals. The government will not compensate. People in the community are really concerned about it. It bothers me that the minister has such power. We are really concerned the control of the minister over the water board. We have not heard anything yet about the local people in regard to claims and the economy.
Ms Muir: I am slightly familiar with the issues that you are facing with Bill C-33. It is somewhat of a different context than the non-derogation clause in the Yukon Act because there you are dealing with treaty issues. This bill does not involve any provisions of an Aboriginal land claims at all. There is a significant distinction.
As far as I understand, the First Nations who are involved in the process do not object to this new language in this context. I should note, however, that some First Nations would prefer there to be additional language as well.
The Chairman: On the bottom of page 3, the last paragraph, you say that the DTA provides that, following the effective date for devolution, Yukon government will provide fire suppression services to the national settlement land within policies and financial resources available for that purpose.
I do not believe that the First Nation settlements have a vote, and, of course, they do not have a budget. I think that would give me rather cold comfort if I were sitting out there in my house and the fire department told me that they might or might not come out depending on whether they have any money. What is your position on that?
Ms Muir: I will give a brief background. Under the final agreements, there is a commitment for five years for government to fight forest fires on settlement land in the Yukon, in accordance with government policy. Government does not fight every forest fire. They have initial attack zones and policies that detail where fires are fought.
The Chairman: That is what worries me. If I were there, I might be worried that my land would be left out.
Ms Muir: There are provisions for First Nations to be involved in the review of these policies, as well. The Yukon government has agreed that it will continue that forest fire suppression on settlement land after devolution occurs, but it would have to be within the same policies that they use to fight forest fires on Crown land.
Generally, those kinds of issues are first on the list. I am not well versed in the fire policies, but those same kinds of policies that apply to Crown land would apply to settlement land.
The Chairman: I am not convinced, but I will turn over the floor to Senator Sibbeston.
Senator Sibbeston: With respect to control of lands and resources, the Northwest Territories also looks forward to goals in that area. There are some preliminary discussions underway among the territorial governments, the First Nations and the federal government. I am wondering about the Yukon situation.
Having responsible government is fun as long as there is money. As long as you have money to run governments, one can say that it is fun and interesting.
The Nunavut government, in recent years, has expressed concerns they want more money from the federal government. As you can appreciate, there are not a lot of resources in the Arctic that have been developed and from which taxes and income can be derived.
Given this control of lands and resources, how will the Yukon fare? What are the prospects in the future for having sufficient funds that you can really enjoy self-government and all that that entails?
Ms Muir: I can speak to the financial arrangements that are set out in the devolution agreement. The Northern Affairs budget for the Yukon will be transferred to the Yukon government and will be part of its gross expenditure base. That is estimated at about $34 million per year. Under the formula, there is a population growth adjustment that is applied to those funds. There is also a significant amount of money, somewhere around $24 million, I believe, in transitional funding that will be provided to the Yukon government for various purposes, including the forest sector fund I mentioned earlier, forest inventory infrastructure moneys, some transitional moneys to integrate computer systems and so forth.
There are a number of one-time costs for which the Yukon government will be covered over a one-to-five-year period. The $34 million budget will be transferred on an ongoing basis to the Yukon government. As well, there is an opportunity for the $3 million from the resource revenues to add to revenues without suffering a loss under the formula.
Those are the fundamental financial parameters of the transfer. I believe that the Yukon government had done a very significant due diligence exercise as part of this negotiation. We are satisfied with the funding that is to be received.
Senator Sibbeston: I take it that while you have management and control over resources, you will not have control of the taxation and the financial matters or of any money that is derived from those resources at this stage?
Ms Muir: No, we would have those as well. There would be taxation issues. That is the royalty from the resources. That is the one that is sort of capped at $3 million before it then starts to have an effect on the grant that we get from the federal government.
Other than that, with respect to taxation issues or any other land sales or any other ways that one would normally deal with land and resources to raise revenues, the Yukon government will have that authority.
Senator Sibbeston: In a sense, this really does complete responsible government for Yukon, does it not?
Ms Muir: It does.
Senator Sibbeston: You are at the next stage to becoming a province. That is the next big stage that you will see in the life of Yukon, is it not?
Ms Muir: I think that it is correct to say that it does basically complete the responsible government. The only remaining function that would still be significantly with Canada is the Crown Attorney function in the Yukon. At some point in the future, that may be something that the Yukon government would look to deal with. There are no talks under way on that subject right now.
That is not a resource-based issue. That is obviously a different type of power.
Senator Sibbeston: I have one final question. Has the Yukon government done any work? Does it envision becoming a province in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Harley Trudeau, Senior Intergovernmental Representative, Yukon Territorial Government: It is a political question, but the premier has answered that question in the past. She has answered it. We are much more interested in getting the economy up and running. The next big stage of development is to become less dependent upon an economy that is based on a boom-and-bust cycle and to consciously work over the next number of years to build our economy.
Senator Banks: Following on that same line of questioning, there is, I suspect - although it will not be written down anywhere - a relationship between how successful Yukon will be in developing its economy, on the one hand, and the strings being really cut, on the other hand. It is not unreasonable that the Government of Canada is saying that so long as the Government of Canada is providing this load of money to operate, it wants to have some strings here. It is one of those strings I want to ask you about.
We are used to territories having commissioners. I grew up with that idea.
Senator Christensen: They are very nice people.
Senator Banks: They are always munificent. They have always acted wisely and with the best interests of the people.
This transition about to take place is really only partial, is it not? The commissioner will have, as do Lieutenant Governors, the power of disallowance of legislation that is passed by the council. Is that not so?
To continue that topic, how often, to your knowledge, has a commissioner in recent history disallowed laws that were made by the territorial government? The context in which I am asking that question is that Lieutenant Governors of provinces have theoretically that power as well. It is extremely rarely used; I think once or twice in the last hundred years.
Is it more common in Yukon? Has it been done in the Yukon? If so, approximately how many times has it been done? Do you anticipate that to be diminishing in the 10 years in which the commissioner will continue to have that power?
Mr. Funston: In terms of the technicalities, the commissioner does not technically disallow it; it is the Governor in Council or the federal executive branch that does. The commissioner can refuse to give assent to a bill. In that case, it is usually referred or deferred to the Governor in Council.
To my knowledge, there have been nine occasions.
Senator Banks: You are right. That is exactly what happens with the Lieutenant Governor, refusal of assent, and in that case it is thrown into the feds' lap, which they do not like very much.
Mr. Funston: I believe I am correct that the last time there was disallowance with regard to a province was in 1943. In Yukon, I think there have been eight or nine occasions, and they vary. They are not all disallowance. In some cases, it was the administrator or commissioner - whoever was functioning in that role at the time - who refused to give assent and referred it. In some cases, the bill may have passed or been amended and then passed. It occurred in 1946, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1964, 1971, 1977, 1978, and the last one was 1982. In the last 20 years, I do not think there have been any occasions.
The commissioner tends to act like a Lieutenant Governor. It would be a rare situation indeed that a commissioner would step in.
Senator Banks: It would be rare in a province as well.
Mr. Funston: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Christensen: I have a number of questions. Some of them have already been answered. Some of them I will ask you to elaborate upon. They are based on concerns that I have heard. I would like those answers on the record so that all the Yukoners who rush out and grab a copy of our transcripts will have the answers.
Following up on Senator Sibbeston's question on the funding issue, there is the $3 million that is the top of funds that can be kept from revenue resources. Are the oil and gas accord revenues affected by that, or are they in addition to?
Ms Muir: They are unaffected by that. The oil and gas devolution was a separate agreement that has taken place and occurred in 1998. Under that devolution agreement, there is also a $3 million resource revenue net fiscal benefit, as we refer to it, from oil and gas. The oil and gas one is separate. This $3 million deals with the resources from land, mines, minerals and forestry, but not oil and gas.
Senator Christensen: Under the Devolution Transfer Agreement, that $3 million would include taxes on land, sale of land, forestry resources and mining resources?
Ms Muir: Yes, I believe it would include all the revenues. I cannot say for sure if tax revenues would be included in that or not. Certainly, land sales and royalties, those kinds of revenues are included. However, I can find out.
Senator Christensen: If they were developing individual lots in different places, would the property taxes coming back from those would go to the territorial government and be part of that $3 million, or would they be in addition to it? We do have taxes now.
Ms Muir: We have the authority to impose property tax now. That is correct. That is unaffected.
Senator Christensen: That is not part of this.
Ms Muir: That is right.
Senator Christensen: I am wondering if the property taxes on the new lands would go into the old bucket of property taxes or would be included in the $3 million.
Perhaps you could give us a note on that.
Ms Muir: Yes, I will clarify that.
Senator Banks: I understand that there are two streams of revenue; one being oil and gas and the other being other land-related revenues. There is a cap of $3 million on each of those streams of revenue that goes to the Yukon government. Approximately what proportion of the total of those streams of revenue is $3 million?
Ms Muir: If the Yukon government receives more than $3 million from resource revenues under this devolution, under the formula funding arrangement that we have with Canada - which is a complex calculation that results in a grant to the Yukon government - there is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the grant.
Senator Banks: You continue to get all of the revenues?
Ms Muir: That is correct.
Senator Banks: However, the amount that you received above $3 million is reduced from the federal revenue contribution, rather like equalization.
Ms Muir: That is correct.
Senator Christensen: I will not ask about the interest earned until you pay it back.
With regard to the cost of fire services, we have heard major concerns expressed about the formula reducing from 80 per cent to 40 per cent over the five years, and then sort of disappearing. The inference has been made that that will be it.
Could you expand on what there is in the devolution transfer agreement to assist in that regard?
Ms Muir: The sharing to which you refer is under Chapter 5 of the devolution agreement. It sets out an arrangement between Canada and YTG for five years following devolution for the percentage in which they will share fire suppression costs over and above a certain threshold. As you say, it runs from 80 per cent to 40 per cent. At the end of the five years, there is a mandatory review of the fire sharing arrangement that will look at how much was been spent over the years, how much the Yukon government was able to set aside for its fire suppression war chest, what the trend is in forest fires, and how it is expected to play out over the next few years. There will be a mandatory review of those kinds of matters in the fifth year after the effective date.
Senator Christensen: Will any other funds go to the territorial government above the percentage set out?
Ms Muir: There is a transition. The federal government has set aside some money to improve fire suppression infrastructure. If the work is not completed by April 1, 2003, the remaining dollars will go to the Yukon government as well.
As I mentioned, there is some transitional funding that the Yukon government will decide how to allocate.
Senator Christensen: The Yukon government can put those funds into a war chest to be used in the future?
Ms Muir: Yes. There is also ability to apply for extraordinary assistance under the formula, should there be a catastrophic event that the Yukon government cannot finance.
Senator Christensen: There is $20 million for environmental clean up of sites that were polluted under the NPA watch. There has been concern expressed by some Yukoners about what will happen to big mine sites where bankruptcies have occurred and large and expensive clean-ups are required. What provisions are there for that? Is that part of the $20 million?
Ms Muir: No. Under Chapter 6 of the devolution agreement, which deals with environmental clean-up matters, the general principle is that Canada will continue to be responsible for environmental hazards that occurred while Canada had administration and control of the land and the Yukon government will be responsible for hazards that occur while the Yukon government has administration and control of the land.
The Northern Affairs Program's Waste Management Program has already identified a number of sites. They have an inventory of those sites and $2 million a year for 10 years has been set aside to deal with the clean-up of all those identified sites.
The big mining sites are not part of that inventory. They are treated separately in Chapter 6. They are referred to as Type 2 sites. There are lengthy provisions dealing with them, the long and short of which is that, although the "polluter pay" principle is upheld, should there be a large abandoned site with no operator to do the clean-up, Canada will retain financial responsibility for the clean-up of hazards that occurred while Canada had administration and control of the site. As I said, Yukon would be responsible for matters that occurred under its control. Chapter 6 of the devolution agreement addresses that in detail.
Senator Christensen: As you aware, there is an ongoing review and restructuring with regard to federal employees being transferred to the territorial government. Is there any grandfathering of federal employees to protect them over territorial employees?
Ms Muir: No. The Yukon government has committed and is obligated to offer jobs to all indeterminate NAP employees at least six months prior to devolution. Those people will decide whether to accept those job offers. As I mentioned, the Yukon government is interested in having everyone accept the job offers. Once they become Government of Yukon employees the policies, procedures and laws of the Yukon government dealing with its public service will govern them.
Senator Christensen: Is it correct that the date of April 1, 2003 was chosen by the CYFN as the earliest possible date for devolution?
Ms Muir: Yes. As negotiations were ongoing, it was not always clear what date would be realistic. The date of April 1, 2002 was agreed upon at one time. It was later agreed among principals that the date would be moved back to April 1, 2003, to allow time for the conclusion of outstanding land claims before devolution.
Given that the federal land claims mandate of the federal government is due to expire in March, 2002, it was felt that, a year after that would be enough time to see any of those claims through to the end, before the devolution actually takes place.
Senator Christensen: We were talking earlier about the First Nation provisions and the devolution clauses. There are provisions for First Nations who have their signed agreements. Perhaps you could elaborate on those provisions where they would benefit as a result of the devolution agreement - the First Nations that have signed as of 2003.
Ms Muir: I would mention the fire suppression clause. If they have their agreement, they will have settlement planned and so they will have fire suppression.
Senator Christensen: Extensions.
Ms Muir: Extensions, that is right.
There are some financial provisions that affect First Nations with agreements. Some of the funding for the devolution of the Northern Affairs Program to each of the individual First Nations that had agreements is actually tied up with devolution.
Senator Christensen: Is that for the Program and Service Transfer Agreements?
Ms Muir: That is right. Under those Program and Service Transfer Agreements, upon devolution, each of the First Nations with agreements will be receiving about $45,000 per year as part of the funding.
Senator Christensen: That is annually and continually.
Ms Muir: Annually and continually, yes. Those are two specific examples. All of the other areas in the agreement that provide involvement, say for development of successor legislation, apply to First Nations with final agreements, as well as to those without.
Senator Christensen: That only takes place as at 2003. For argument's sake, if that date were extended to 2004 or 2005, those that have signed will not be able to benefit until such time as the agreement took place.
Ms Muir: That is right. The commitments of the Yukon government in the devolution agreement will have life once the devolution occurs. I should, perhaps, clarify that for fire suppression. In the interim, Canada, of course, would be providing fire suppression.
Senator Christensen: There is a definite financial advantage to those.
Ms Muir: To those with agreements, yes.
Senator Christensen: I have also received letters, and one of them is from Mr. Jenkins who has some major concerns, as you are probably aware. One of them is that at the consultation process, as you well know, in the fall of 1999, there was a public process and a special commission that was formed to run the public process and report back to the government of the day to make recommendations. There were a number of recommendations - nine or ten of them, I believe. How many of those do you know were implemented or are a part of the Yukon Act? If you do not have that information, I would ask if you would submit a response.
Ms Muir: I do not have that specifically, but we would be happy to obtain that information for you.
Certainly, the two issues to which I alluded in my remarks regarding the boundary and the ownership of land were raised in the special report of the special committee. In terms of the other recommendations, we can provide you with specifics in respect of the recommendation of how and whether it was addressed.
Senator Christensen: Perhaps we can then go back to the offshore boundary issue. There has been quite a bit of reference to Nunavut having such boundary issues settled in their agreement. I am not certain that they are settled, and ours were not. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.
Mr. Funston: The boundary issue is complex. This process started under a previous Yukon government and the momentum was maintained and finalized under the current government. It was determined fairly early on that this was not really the right forum for it because it was breaking new ground. The suggestion was actually that there would be a boundary change to the current Yukon. When Nunavut was created, it effectively divided an existing territory - the Northwest Territories. The issue was made complex by the definition of Northwest Territories that was in the original act. It speaks of that part of Canada North of the 60th parallel that does not fall within one of the provinces.
The issue has been outstanding for at least 30 years as to whether that included the offshore or did not include the offshore. Over the years, of course, there was the USS Manhattan voyage through the Northwest Passage, Canada's response to the Polar Sea Expedition in 1986, the Oceans Act that now defines certain offshore territories, and there are the regulations that promulgate the boundary lines around the Archipelago and measure our national territories out from those points. It is a complex question: What is Canada in the North?
Given the Yukon's geographic position with its neighbour Alaska that has an Inuvialuit settlement area that is drawn into the offshore, and a territorial government in Yellowknife that works on a definition that claims it is that part of Canada north of 60 degrees. This is an issue that has a complex element to it.
The early response was that we are not saying that the Yukon position will not be put forward, but it will not be put forward in the current forum, which is a bill to modernize the Yukon Act and not expand Yukon in terms of its geography. The current boundaries are maintained in the bill, and we did not negotiate any attempt to change those boundaries.
Senator Christensen: Is there not also an argument on the international boundary and its extension between Yukon and Alaska?
Mr. Funston: Yes, and I referenced the Alaskan neighbour. The boundary between Alaska and Canada was established in 1825 under a treaty with the United Kingdom. It refers to the extension of the 141st meridian. The question has arisen with the Americans as to whether you extend the meridian to extend Canada's boundary. The American position is that, at that part of the coast, you measure the boundary by taking a perpendicular to the coast. That would angle the line in such a way that there is a triangle disputed with the Americans, and as luck would have it, it is an area that may have oil and gas potential. That is an open question with the Americans, and has not been resolved. Of course, the Yukon Act was probably not the place to negotiate that.
Mr. Trudeau: The Americans believe in refraction at that point.
Senator Christensen: On the subject of offshore issues, I believe that you said earlier that offshore rights are beyond part of a negotiation process because of the oil and gas accord. In this discussion, that would include offshore up to Herschel Island and beyond. Is that correct?
Ms Muir: That is correct.
Senator Christensen: That is the important part - revenues, et cetera.
Senator Christensen: That is being dealt with.
Ms Muir: I believe that is one of the mandates of the committee - dealing with resource issues.
Senator Christensen: To put a box around the issue of the Crown in Right of Yukon, as opposed to the Queen, did you want to expand on that - the importance of the non-issue of it or the issue of it? It has certainly been raised as a major concern.
Mr. Funston: The Crown issue is one of those issues that is fun for constitutional people like myself to bandy about. It potentially has a limited impact on citizens. It relates particularly to issues of status.
There is again a complex history here. In 1875, when the first Northwest Territories Act was put in place by Parliament, the head of government was called the lieutenant governor. In those days, the federal position was that the lieutenant governors of territories and provinces were not the representatives of the Queen. That issue was resolved in 1893 in a particular court case.
Shortly after that, the Yukon was created. We had in the Northwest Territories at that time a lieutenant governor. There was the creation of this new district in the Yukon. A commissioner headed it. In fact, the commissioner nomenclature continued. There are arguments as to whether the role of the Crown is carried out in the territories by a commissioner.
Unfortunately, the notion of Crown is complicated with things relating to the land and ownership questions. It gets tied in with prosecutorial functions. This was one of the issues that was raised in the public forum but was red-circled for a time in these negotiations. It was agreed that rather than spend much time trying to shift the balance, we would try to maintain a status quo approach.
We decided to not prejudice either position. The federal government was that there is no Crown in Right of a Territory. The territory's position was that in some circumstances there might be "a Crown in Right of."
The question does not have to be resolved given the structure and administration of lands. Clearly, they are still held by the Crown in Right of Canada. They are under the administration and control of the Yukon government.
However, it is one of those arcane issues of constitutional law that is not easy to parcel up. Once you have parcelled it up, it will not necessarily have many practical implications one way or another. It has a bearing on issues of status.
There are other territories in the world that have this same issue. In the northern territory in Australia, for example, the statute establishing the self-government of the territory actually refers to a Crown in Right of the Territory and deals with that. It may be an issue that will be resolved through courts, if necessary. It may be resolved by statute in the future.
Again, it was one of those things that would have detracted from the practical purpose of getting the devolution agreement done, the act modernized and a solid chance for Yukon governments in the future to control their own economic wherewithal and develop in the territory.
Senator Christensen: I have two short questions. First, the Yukon act that was circulated in a public information gathering and consultation process was a 19-page Yukon Act. The present one is 150-some odd pages. What has been put in there to create the difference? What do Yukoners not know that is in there?
Ms Muir: I can say that the Yukon Act proper is about 20 pages long. There are a number of transitional provisions that deal with a seamless transfer between Canada and the Yukon. The remaining paper includes consequential amendments to other federal legislation, basically, modernizing the use of the language. For example, we are called Yukon instead of Yukon Territory.
Senator Christensen: That is in there 175 times.
Ms Muir: There are upwards of 90 federal statutes that are amended in this regard. That is why it seems so bulky, I am afraid.
Senator Christensen: Does the Government of the Yukon feel that there has been a comprehensive consultation process on this bill and on the devolution agreement?
Mr. Trudeau: I would like to leave that question to be answered by others. I will say that in reference to the comment that was made earlier about the size of the bill and the provisions that are included, they bear a very close resemblance to the first draft that was undertaken. Extensive consultation was part of that first draft.
Senator Adams: Senator Christensen asked about native agreements. Is that $25,000 per person for ongoing funding or a one-shot deal?
Ms Muir: That is ongoing funding every year.
Senator Adams: How many people would that affect?
Ms Muir: That falls under the parcel of the self-government agreement. The First Nation has the ability to negotiate a program and service transfer agreement. That is what they have done with respect to the Northern Affairs Program on settlement land. Some of the funding that was tied into devolution will become available to them upon devolution.
I believe it is about $45,000 per year on an ongoing basis. That currently would apply to seven First Nations. As First Nations finalize their self-government agreements, they would be entitled to have those funds as well. Eventually, it would apply to all of the Yukon First Nations.
Senator Adams: Do you not have, as we do in Nunavut, a trust fund?
Ms Muir: It does not for this particular program. The final agreements in the Yukon do set up a fairly comprehensive and complex funding arrangement. There are training trust funds. There are fish and wildlife enhancement trust funds. There are financial compensation dollars. There are a number of different financial provisions applicable to First Nations in the Yukon.
The Chairman: For clarification, my researcher says that $25,000 is per First Nation; it is not per person in the Yukon. The $25,000 or $45,000 is per First Nation.
Ms Muir: That is correct.
The Chairman: Not per person?
Ms Muir: Per First Nation.
The Chairman: If it were per person, you would start off a great marriage rush.
Ms Muir: It is per First Nation.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming and waiting patiently all week. We had intended to have the meetings with First Nations, the minister and you earlier this week. However, a combination of events including the arrival of the legislation later than expected and the Opposition deciding to slap us about a little bit - which is their right to do - delayed matters. I was in opposition many more years than I was in government, so I know that is how it is done.
Nevertheless, we are glad that we were able to hear you. In February, we will be meeting the First Nations and the minister. We might want you back, too.
The committee adjourned.