Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of February 2, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-14, to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 6:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I would welcome my colleagues, guests and visitors to the Aboriginal peoples committee. This evening we are dealing with Bill C-14, to give effect to the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement and related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
To put the agreement into context, the Northwest Territories, where this agreement will affect, is an expansive part of our country. It extends from the 60th parallel to the North Pole and covers 1.17 million square kilometres, which makes it slightly larger than Ontario. Unlike Ontario though, it has a population of less than 50,000 people. It is a massive and interesting part of our country and the people who are the subject of the agreement are a First Nations group that resides north and west of the Yellowknife area. The Tlicho agreement is the tripartite agreement between the Tlicho, Canada and the Northwest Territories which will transfer 39,000 square kilometres of land to the Tlicho people. It will also provide $152 million over a 15-year period, so the consequences and the effects of this agreement are far reaching. The Tlicho will have lands and ownership of resources. They will have management and law-making authority in the area called Wek'eezhii, which encompasses the area they traditionally occupy.
This is the fourth land claims agreement. The Inuvialuit signed their agreement in 1984; the Gwich'in in 1992; and the Sahtu and Metis in 1994. This is the first agreement that covers both lands and self-government. In this way it is unique and it is a more complete package, as it were.
Our first witness, who has just arrived, is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Andy Scott. Later, we will hear from Premier Joe Handley. Also in attendance is the minister's staff. I see Ms. Susan Barnes and other department officials.
Mr. Minister, please proceed.
Hon. Andy Scott, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Thank you very much. I apologize for arriving just in time. During the budget season, as the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs or as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament one cannot miss an opportunity.
Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I appreciate very much the opportunity to lead off this committee's review of Bill C-14, the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act. I am confident that committee members, once they have completed a careful consideration and thorough analysis of the bill, will find be supportive of the bill. The agreement at the heart of this proposed legislation combines, for the first time, a land claim and a self-government agreement in the Northwest Territories. Many people have worked very hard to bring this bill to where it is today. From those who sat around the negotiating table to the Elders who flew to Ottawa to witness the proceedings, their efforts should be recognized.
In the past few months, reports in the media have repeated an incorrect claim about the effect of Bill C-14 on international treaties. This theory suggests that the Tlicho government could interfere or even void an agreement between Canada and another country.
Mr. Chairman, Bill C-14 does not impede Canada's ability to negotiate and implement international treaties, nor does it empower the Tlicho or the government of the Northwest Territories to complete agreements with other countries. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply based on a serious misreading of the bill.
In fact, Bill C-14 stipulates that the Tlicho government must exercise its powers in ways that are compatible with Canada's international legal obligations. This means that, should the Tlicho pass a law or take an action that prevents Canada from honouring a commitment made under international treaties, they are required to provide a remedy that enables Canada to meet its obligations.
The second incorrect argument suggests that Bill C-14 creates two types of citizens in Tlicho communities and assigns a separate set of rights to each group. According to this line of reasoning, the new intergovernmental relationship established under Bill C-14 would somehow enable Tlicho governments to discriminate unfairly against non-Tlicho residents. This allegation seems to result from a simple misreading of a few facts. Bill C-14 does establish a new relationship between the Tlicho, Canada and the Northwest Territories, but this relationship is based on mutual recognition and respect. While the bill has separate provisions for Tlicho and non-Tlicho residents, to suggest that these facts set the stage for a systematic denial of democratic rights is unfounded.
I encourage members of the committee to scrutinize the self-government provisions included in Bill C-14. As you will see, it establishes two levels of Tlicho government: municipal type councils in each of the four Tlicho communities; and a central Tlicho government. The municipal type governments created under territorial legislation are authorized to, among other things, licence businesses, enact zoning bylaws and manage road and water services. The central government is empowered to rule on matters related to culture and language and to represent the Tlicho interests on resource development boards.
Safeguards ensure that these governments are accountable, representative and responsible. Officials are chosen through democratic voting processes, accounts of finances and expenses are subject to independent audit and the results are made public. Furthermore, the Tlicho Constitution developed and ratified before Bill C-14 was introduced in Parliament includes a number of provisions against conflict of interest and other potential abuses of power.
Other provisions of Bill C-14 balance the interests of Tlicho and non-Tlicho residents. The head of each community government, along with the regional chief, must be Tlicho. To ensure that non-Tlicho citizens have a voice in local government, special election rules allow non-Tlicho residents to qualify to vote and serve as councillors. Non-Tlicho residents can hold up to 50 per cent of seats on each municipal council.
Bill C-14 fundamentally changes Canada's relationship with the Tlicho. The legislation grants new powers and charges them with new responsibilities. Under Bill C-14, the Indian Act, which limits the liability and decision-making powers of band councils, will no longer apply to the Tlicho. The Tlicho and their governments, however, will be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I am convinced that the Tlicho are ready, willing and able to exercise the powers and discharge the responsibilities in a fair, efficient and effective manner.
My conviction is based largely on the recent history of the Tlicho people. Three decades ago they made a series of momentous and far-sighted decisions. In the 1970s their leaders recognized that the rapid development of natural resources on traditional lands posed a serious threat to their language and culture. To protect their ancient way of life, the Tlicho embarked on an ambitious plan to bolster their ability to benefit from resource development, while simultaneously safeguarding their culture. The strategy called for substantial investments in education, social services, economic development and community infrastructure.
Today the wisdom of this plan is clear for all to see. The Tlicho, the first Aboriginal group in Canada to run a school board, now operate five elementary and secondary schools. The Tlicho also appreciate the value of post-secondary education. Today their scholarship fund supports more than 120 students at various colleges and universities.
The secret of the Tlicho success is simple: partnership. At every opportunity, the Tlicho have cooperated with governments, public agencies and private companies. The recent history of the Tlicho is reflected in a series of mutually beneficial agreements negotiated with dozens of partners. The Tlicho's zest for partnership has sparked a wave of entrepreneurship. Today a growing number of Tlicho businesses are active in a range of economic sectors such as tourism and mining.
When diamonds were discovered on the Tlicho's tradition lands, negotiations were launched with two multi- national mining firms: Diavik and MPH Billiton. The Tlicho secured impact benefit agreements that deliver benefits to all parties. The mining companies gain access to the local source of reliable, dedicated employees who possess an unsurpassed knowledge of local land and climate. The Tlicho receive jobs and training opportunities for their people and contracts for Aboriginal firms.
The Tlicho negotiated the agreement at the heart of Bill C-14 to support and expand their partnership model. They recognized that to realize the full potential of their people, they would need access to tools and mechanisms available only to a self-governing people. Bill C-14 clarifies ownership of land and resources and provides the certainty the Tlicho need to attract new partners. Bill C-14 enjoys the support of an overwhelming majority of the residents of Tlicho communities. Indeed, the self-government agreement is the product of these communities. At each stage of the negotiation and ratification process, dozens of information sessions and consultations were held in each community. These meetings not only insured that all voices were heard, but also generated feedback that led to improvements in the final agreement.
Mr. Chairman, Bill C-14 is an important milestone in the history of Canada's relationship with Aboriginal peoples. It grants the Tlicho the power to manage their affairs in a way that respects modern democratic principles and honours ancient traditions. I am confident that an honest consideration of Bill C-14 can inspire only confidence in the long-term benefits for the Tlicho and, indeed, for all Canadians.
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, was it your intention to also have Susan Barnes make a statement at this point, or are you content to answer any questions that may arise?
Mr. Scott: Ethel Blondon-Andrew, Minister of State, will join us later. I will take this opportunity to introduce Ms. Susan Barnes. She is somewhat limited by a bronchial condition, but the fact that she has brought herself here tonight in the face of that is an indication of the level of her interest and her critical role as parliamentary secretary in managing the legislation through the Commons.
I will ask Ms. Isaak and Ms. Douglas to identify themselves and their positions within the department.
Ms. Paula Isaak, Associate Chief Federal Negotiator Northwest Territories, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: I am the Associate Chief Federal Negotiator responsible for the Tlicho file.
Ms. Mary Douglas, Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: I am counsel with the Legal Services Unit assigned to the department in question. I have been working on the file since the middle of negotiations.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chair, others here will support us in technical ways, as required.
The Chairman: On our agenda I also see the names of Richard Ashton, James Stringham and Annie Carrier.
Senator Kinsella: Let me add to the words of appreciation that you have expressed to the many people who spent many hours — both those from the Tlicho community and the many public servants — working assiduously on these most complex files. Sometimes we fail to recognize the work that goes on in the trenches. I am glad you did, and I second your remarks.
You raised the issue of international treaty making. As you have indicated, concerns have been expressed, whether they are based on solid fact or not, that through this agreement Canada is compromising its sovereignty. Section 7.13 of the treaty requires the government of Canada to confer with the Tlicho government prior to consenting to be bound to an international treaty if that treaty might affect the rights of the Tlicho First Nation or Tlicho citizens. What happens in the event the Tlicho have a serious disagreement with the contents or potential consequences of an international agreement to which Canada wishes to become a party?
Mr. Scott: The reference is deliberate. I think the words are to discuss, to allow the community to provide an opportunity for the government to make its views known. The government is not bound by that. That is what allows the government to take the position that this does not compromise their ability to make international agreements.
Senator Kinsella: This raises the concern that I have. We have had a constitutional convention in Canada since the mid-1930s when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that a constitutional convention existed that required the federal government to receive the concurrence of a substantial majority of provinces, should Canada decide to deposit the instrument of ratification of an international treaty that would affect the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces. That labour case convention was built upon by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case dealing with the Constitution Act in 1981. Therefore, we have a convention in Canada that if the federal authority is going to enter into an international treaty affecting the jurisdiction of the provinces, it must have substantial support from the provinces if it affects their jurisdiction. It seems to me that this provision is much less in the matter of the Tlicho, and I wonder why there is this dual standard. Why would the test not be a little bit higher so that the Tlicho community, if it is affecting their area of jurisdiction, would have more than simply a right to be consulted?
Ms. Douglas: It certainly is substantially less than the constitutional principle to which you refer. It was a question of balance between the interests of the nation as a whole, with which, presumably, the international agreement would be concerned, against the interests of a particular portion of the community in Canada. It was felt that it was appropriate that, although the views of the Tlicho must be solicited, a veto would not be vested with the Tlicho.
Senator Kinsella: I want to understand the policy decision behind that. I have to ask the parliamentary secretary or the minister: What is the policy rationale for doing that?
Mr. Scott: Ms. Barnes will probably have something to add, and I would invite Paula to do that as well. I believe that this is the product of negotiation between the two parties. The Government of Canada's position in that exercise would be as indicated. The policy would simply be to protect the capacity of the Government of Canada to act in the interests of all Canadians in that negotiation. That agreement was reached with the community in question.
Ms. Susan Barnes, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: If the Tlicho government passes a law or takes an action that prevents Canada from performing any international legal obligation, a specific section, section 7.13 of the Tlicho agreement, requires that the Tlicho government remedy its law or action in order to enable Canada to perform the international legal obligation, consistent with its normal compliance. The situation you are talking about was addressed thoughtfully, and they went to incredible measures to make sure this outcome could not be seen by any party.
Further, there is a definition of consultation right in this agreement. This is not part of the consultation. This term was specifically not used, and it is a much lesser standard and very explicit. The minds of all three parties to the agreement were put to this.
Senator Kinsella: That is very helpful. We know with precision the policy principle that the Government of Canada will be operating under. Would it be fair to conclude that in the negotiations that are going on with other communities the same policy principle will be at the basis of those discussions so that we can anticipate that the same provisions regarding consultation respecting international agreements will find its place in those other agreements?
Mr. Scott: Without anticipating what other circumstances might come into play in the negotiations in which we are engaged, as a rule, yes, senator, that would be our general position.
Senator Kinsella: Let me touch on a minor matter. Some concerns have been raised about this agreement with respect to our official languages of Canada, and particularly French language rights. While the treaty does not mention official languages, the Tlicho Constitution clearly states that there are two official languages, Tlicho and English, and that all Tlicho have the right to speak and communicate in both official languages with the Tlicho government and its institutions. What is the federal government's response to this apparent exclusion of the French language?
Mr. Scott: Nothing has changed from what was in place before. The reality is that, where federal institutions come into play, all of the listed entities that carry with them an obligation to provide services in both official languages, will continue to have that obligation and provide that service. The reality is that municipalities, provincial governments, and other political entities that exist in the country are not obliged to apply the official language policy of Canada, and that would be the case in this instance as well.
Senator Kinsella: Does the minister not agree that it is an obligation of the Government of Canada as expressed, in law, in a number of statutes and at the program level, and that there are significant funds appropriately laid aside for the promotion of official languages, such as the programs in Heritage Canada, et cetera? This is an opportunity, as a matter of policy, to promote the use of both official languages, English and French, in that it could be built that into this process. Perhaps the officials could speak to this.
Mr. Scott: As a former member of the Committee on Official Languages, and having a significant relationship with official languages policy at the provincial level, I quite clearly understand the obligations of protection and promotion. The federal government stands by those things and would in fact, from time to time, be engaged as a national government. National departments will be involved, such as Health Canada and other agencies of the Government of Canada. They will all be obliged to provide services, and I believe they will do that quite happily, as would be required according to the official languages policy.
I believe that in federal legislation certain calculations are made respecting the phrase, ``where numbers warrant.'' I am not sure that would necessarily apply in this case. Nevertheless, the reality is that the objectives of the official languages policy of Canada would continue to apply in any interaction with the Government of Canada. There is no more requirement on this particular level of government than would be applied to a municipality or a province receiving federal support, but it does not necessarily carry with it an obligation to adhere to the official languages policy.
Senator Christensen: Welcome, minister. Previous legislation that has been ratified in land claims settlements in the Northwest Territories has specified that it is binding on the Crown. The Nisga'a bill did not contain this, and this version of Bill C-14 does not contain it. However, the previous version brought forward in the last Parliament did. Can you tell us why it was eliminated?
Ms. Douglas: There was a review of the provisions of the bill between the first tabling and the second tabling, and it was determined that the provisions of the agreement should speak for themselves. They clearly confirm which obligations and which authorities were intended to apply to the Crown and which were not. It was felt that this was a more precise way of dealing with the issue of when the Crown was bound and when it was not, rather than having one generic statement in legislation.
Senator Christensen: The obligations binding the Crown were not spelled out in the previous land claims agreements. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Douglas: I am not speaking to the degree of clarity or ambiguity in other agreements. We took another look at this particular agreement and we felt that reliance on the agreement itself was the best way of dealing with that issue, rather than trying to deal with it with one general statement.
Senator St. Germain: My question relates to an issue that was raised when the bill was going through the committee in the other place. The Metis approached us and made a presentation to me and others stating that they had not been consulted in the process.
Minister, as you know, all governments have failed miserably in dealing with the Metis issue in this country. Since 1982, nothing has been done by the governments of this country until the Powley case. Once the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of Powley, there was huge concentration on the issue of Metis rights as properly set out in section 35.
My concern with regard to passing this bill is whether the Metis people have been considered in this process. There are several Metis persons in the region covered by this bill. How will they be treated? How can we reach a final settlement respecting these lands if the Metis may have a claim on them?
Perhaps Ms. Isaak can give us some clarification.
Did you negotiate at all with the Metis? Is there any truth to the allegation that they were not consulted?
Ms. Isaak: The points that you raise with respect to the Metis individuals with whom you spoke are currently in litigation against Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council. A notice of discontinuance has been filed by the Metis. There are some remaining legal questions around that notice, and that will go to case management in the short term. We are unable to speak to any of those issues at this time because of the litigation. Once that litigation has been discontinued, the department will speak with the Metis and determine a course of action.
Senator St. Germain: If the agreement is passed by way of legislation, how can you negotiate? You have nothing to negotiate. You will have settled the land claims agreement. I do not think the self-government aspect is as important as the land claims settlement. How can you possibly negotiate with them if you have arrived at a final settlement with Tlicho?
Ms. Isaak: The Tlicho agreement has a non-derogation clause, so it does ensure that no rights of other Aboriginal groups are infringed by the agreement. This agreement only applies to Tlicho citizens and Tlicho government. There is no derogation of other rights. That protection is provided for in this agreement.
Senator St. Germain: You have agreed with the Tlicho on a land base, have you not?
Ms. Isaak: Yes.
Senator St. Germain: Is there a possibility that you can re-open this agreement and take back some of the lands that you have agreed upon with the Tlicho if it is found that lands could legally be claimed by the Metis people of that region?
Ms. Isaak: Once the litigation is concluded, all interests would need to be explored to determine the best course of action. It is premature to speculate the course of action until the interests and options are determined.
Senator St. Germain: In other words, we are approving something that could possibly be contested by the Metis people in that area and possibly other native groups. Am I understanding this correctly?
Ms. Isaak: As I said, there is non-derogation in this agreement, so no rights of other Aboriginal people are infringed. There is that protection in this agreement. It does not affect rights of other Aboriginal people.
Senator St. Germain: I hear what you are saying, but how can you protect a group's right if you have given it to someone else?
Ms. Isaak: I think all the rights and interests need to be fully explored to know what those are.
Senator St. Germain: Why are we not dealing with everyone at one time then, Ms. Isaak?
Ms. Isaak: We are dealing with the individuals who are eligible to be Tlicho citizens under this agreement. Other processes are going on to deal with others in the region. The objective of Canada is that the rights of all the Aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories are addressed.
Senator St. Germain: You mean, ``are going to be addressed.'' They have not been addressed.
Ms. Isaak: Are addressed or going to be addressed in the future, that is right.
Senator St. Germain: That leaves the door open to a lot of future problems. I am not certain of the figures that were given to me, but the Metis population in that area is considerable, as you would know better than I.
My concerns is overlaps, and the ability of groups to maintain their constitutional rights in the future.
I recognize that we have to move forward with these particular initiatives so that our Aboriginal peoples can be in an economic position to prosper like the rest of the people in the country or the rest of the world. Is there a move for discontinuance on the part of the Metis as far as their litigation is concerned?
Ms. Isaak: They have filed a notice of discontinuance; that is right.
Senator St. Germain: What is holding that up?
Ms. Isaak: There are some legal questions around that discontinuance. It is being discussed among counsel.
Senator St. Germain: I think the lawyers will argue forever about international agreements, as to whether they are final or not. In certain areas there is great concern about all of these native land settlements. I am from British Columbia where there are a lot of agreements in progress. Any agreement can be used as a template in the establishment of another agreement. Therefore, we must be careful if we start to override the interests or the rights of certain other Aboriginal groups or infringe on anyone's rights. My concern about with the Metis issue is that governments have ignored this since 1982. Nothing has been done to negotiate with them, although they are recognized by way of certain organizations in various centres. There have been no serious negotiations regarding the establishment of land negotiations and final agreements with the Metis people.
The Metis in the area of Tlicho have maintained their lifestyle more so than the Metis people from Saint Francis Xavier, Manitoba where there is not a visible Metis community. That is not the case in the area of the Tlicho.
Mr. Scott: I recognize the historical realities in your comments regarding the Metis people. However, it is difficult to give the kind of answers that you would like us to give because of the legal action. Hopefully that will be remedied and we are able to do more than we have been able to do this evening.
On the general question of the treatment of the Metis people historically, in fact, in recent time, quite a bit of progress has been made, much of it post Powley, and I accept that. It has changed the direction of our thinking and, as a result, an honest effort has been made. I spent two days in Calgary speaking about negotiations specifically in a Metis workshop on that subject. We have come quite a ways in a very short time. I acknowledge this is post Powley and that we have been more focused as a result of that decision.
Senator St. Germain: If there is litigation in place, how can you legally proceed with an agreement?
Ms. Isaak: One of the first steps in the litigation was to seek an injunction against the signing of this agreement. The injunction was denied. Therefore, we were able to go forward and sign the agreement.
The remaining aspects of the litigation are not seeking an injunction against this agreement; they involve the assertion of Aboriginal rights and title by the Metis.
Senator St. Germain: You said, ``...the assertion of Aboriginal rights and title by the Metis.''
Ms. Isaak: That is right.
Ms. Barnes: Senator, It might be helpful to realize that most of the Yellowknife Metis Council members are also status Indians on either the Dogrib or Dene Indian Act band list. That may also have an impact on how you view this. They were present at the House of Commons meetings and made a long statement which covered their own history of the situation, the history of their own litigation and what precipitated that. That might be useful information for this committee. I know that they are to be witnesses before this committee. They talked about the adhesion policies of a number of treaties, but that was not pursued. Certainly, as one person in attendance at that meeting, I did not discern that they were trying to impede the movement forward of this bill.
Senator St. Germain: To be fair about this, were the Metis also given an option to gain status as members of the Dogrib band?
Ms. Barnes: There were some short-lived discussions because they did have some internal division within the North Slave Metis Alliance about being at the negotiation table. Beyond that, because of the litigation, I cannot really say. However, there is a lot of information on record.
Senator St. Germain: We are not bound by litigation. In any case, I know where you are coming from. I want you to know that we will be pursuing this through these hearings. I hope it will not delay anything drastically and that there is a reasonable solution to the whole process.
The Chairman: I believe the Metis come into play in three areas. First, there is the reality that the Metis that are descendants of the Tlicho can be part of the agreement and can enrol. Then there are provisions in section 2.7.2 where the court can declare certain parts of the agreement inoperative or ineffective. That may be an opening the Metis can use to be part of the claim. The other is section 2.7.3 where the Tlicho can make an agreement with other Aboriginal groups. You say that those are entry points where the Metis can still be involved in this agreement.
Ms. Barnes: As I said, there is a non-derogation clause in this agreement. We have not abrogated from any other nation's right to pursue any avenue. This agreement stands alone and we want to move forward for the Tlicho people. That is what we are putting before you today.
The Chairman: The Metis representatives from the area will be before us next week, so senators may ask some questions about their involvement and their future.
Senator Fitzpatrick: It would be helpful to me and perhaps other members of the committee if you could give us an idea of the number of Metis who are non-band members that may or may not be affected by this.
Mr. Scott: We do not have it with us, senator, but we will get it to you.
Senator Kinsella: For the fullness of Senator St. Germain's questions, we need to know the numbers; otherwise, our discussion will not mean much. We need to know the percentage in relationship to band members. We also need an answer to Senator St. Germain's first question, which was: Did you or did you not consult with the Metis during these discussions?
The Chairman: Can those questions be answered at this point, minister?
Mr. Scott: I am advised that we can get the numbers them to you. On the question of consultation, that is the subject of the legal action.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that this raises a question of procedure. Parliamentary privilege is operating in this honourable committee, and the jurisprudence is clear. Any questions asked of our witnesses are covered by that same privilege. Therefore, even if a matter is sub judice, parliamentary privilege trumps sub judice matters. An answer to the question is required, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Barnes: I will outline some of the history of this matter.
In the late fall of 1997 the North Slave Metis Alliance met with the chief federal negotiators of the Tlicho Process, the Akaitcho Treaty, the Dene Treaty Entitlement Process and the South Slave Metis Process. As a result of those discussions in early 1998, the North Slave Metis Alliance indicated its preference that its members participate in the Tlicho process, and bilateral and trilateral discussions were held among the Tlicho the North Slave Metis Alliance and Canada.
Canada's objective and the Tlicho's objective was the exploration of the manner in which eligible North Slave Metis Alliance members could be integrated into the Tlicho process. The North Slave Metis Alliance insisted on a separate seat at the Tlicho negotiating table, and the members of the North Slave Metis Alliance had declared that they wanted only the North Slave Metis Alliance to represent them in the land claims negotiations. It was agreed the Tlicho and North Slave Metis Alliance would continue meeting and report back to Canada when those discussions were concluded. They were very short lived due to internal divisions within the North Slave Metis Alliance and the litigation process started.
To say there that had not been an extension would be incorrect. There had been. It was early, and it was fragmented in the litigation process. At our final meeting with the Metis, they advised us that they were filing a notice of discontinuance that week. I am advised today that that is still underway a couple of months later.
Senator Kinsella: That is helpful.
Senator Hubley: My question has to do with the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years the absence of protection afforded First Nations women under the Indian Act has become an increasingly prominent issue, particularly with respect to the division of property on reserve following relationship breakdowns.
Under the agreement, which jurisdiction has legislative authority over the division of property and other family law matters relevant to relationship breakdowns?
Mr. Scott: I will take a crack at that and be corrected, if necessary.
On the Charter question, the response is as was stated in my opening address — the Charter applies absolutely.
On the question of marital property, that would be the jurisdiction of the territorial government. I would ask Ms. Barnes speak to this.
Ms. Barnes: The matrimonial real property on reserves is an important issue that has not been properly dealt with to date. In this particular self-government and land claims agreement, the lands under the Tlicho agreement will be for Tlicho communities and they will not be reserve lands. They will be public lands and, therefore, the territorial legislation will apply.
The local community governments will own the land in fee simple in those four communities, and territorial laws relating to matrimonial property will apply to all of those four community lands.
Senator Léger: We are at the point of ratifying the agreement through legislation. I am not a specialist in the field of law, but I do know that laws are enacted to help us rather than hinder us. However, the process seems to become very complicated when we try to enact legislation that relates to these land claims agreements. Can you be of some assistance? I believe I represent all of those who do not understand the intracies of this process.
Mr. Scott: Speaking as a sociologist, I have a tendency to see these things conceptually first. The reality is that we are establishing entirely new relationships and the basis of those relationships is these agreements. I believe that is a positive development in our country. I believe that the Nisga'a Agreement in British Columbia has been demonstrated to be so successful that I am being urged, on a regular basis, to move forward. That comes from those who were sceptical of the Nisga'a Agreement before it was passed. They were sceptical about what it would offer to the community — not just the Nisga'a community but also to the community of British Columbia. Those very people are now calling to ask, why there has not been more progress on the other treaties. This does not come from within the community itself, necessarily, but from within the broader community of British Columbia.
The level of precision that has accompanied this negotiation is not something that my sociological education trained me to deal with either. Ms. Barnes is here to compensate for that. Her professional background is a nice compliment.
Ms. Barnes: Even though all treaties will cover a core body, it is not our intention to make a template of any one agreement and roll it out across the country, because there is distinctiveness and there are differences. We have an agreement between three bodies that was worked out over time to ensure that we could form the best possible relationships.
In this agreement we have two types of governments. The Tlicho Agreement provides for these two types in its own body of legislation. The first is the central Tlicho government. It manages the rights and benefits of Tlicho citizens and Tlicho land and Tlicho resources, and it enacts laws concerning the Tlicho language, culture and way of life. The lawmaking powers of the Tlicho government are explicitly outlined in chapter 7 of the agreement. It also outlines the limitations on these powers and the conditions concerning these powers.
The second type of government in this agreement is what I just referred to in my answer about matrimonial real property. They have opted in this agreement for public lands, so it is similar to a municipal government. The territorial government will set up the municipal governments in the four communities. They will do what every other municipal government would do, for example, enact bylaws with respect to licensing businesses, managing water and road services, and zoning bylaws. That will be set out and managed by the enacting piece of territorial legislation.
Obviously this is a different situation than that which existed in the Nisga'a situation. I know you are playing devils advocate with your question because we are explaining different types of forms of government brought about by these agreements.
In talking about language, the Tlicho language is an official language of the legislature of the Northwest Territories. It is one of seven or eight languages that are used there. It is the desire of the people, and it has been agreed to by various other levels of government in compliance with this accord.
Senator Léger: That is what caught my attention in this Tlicho agreement. If I have read and understood it well, the difference in the others is that, in this case, you have one more step, that is, governance. I believe that this is progress. I imagine that, once this is passed, it will be a beginning, not the end. We will build upon it. I find this third order of government to be most interesting.
Ms. Barnes: With respect, I do not agree with the concept of, or the terminology, ``third order of government.'' I would suggest that there are two types of government in here. One will be a municipal-type government, and it will be brought about because, in this agreement, the community lands are those which will be founded by the legislation of the territorial government to enact municipalities. There will be four Tlicho communities. In fact, those communities already exist. They will change their name to the Tlicho name and they will continue. With respect, ``third order of government,'' would not be a characterization I would use. I think that is a misleading term. However, there is a Tlicho government that has specialized but limited powers, and that is important to understand.
Mr. Scott: In response to the question about the evolution of this particular agreement as compared to others and the fact that the land piece and the governance piece were separated, it allows for a certain opportunity for evolution on the governance side that perhaps would not have existed before. I think that is a positive development in this exercise, particularly for the relationship because, while the land issue might be resolved, I do not think that we can limit the capacity of the community, in its own way, to develop its governance. I think that has to remain less certain.
Senator Buchanan: I am pleased to hear you say that, in your opinion, this is not a third level of government because, as I recall, section 35 does not confer any right for a third level of government. It does, of course, recognize an inherent right of the treaties, but it does not confer a constitutional right to create another level of government. We have gone through this argument before. To do that would require a constitutional amendment.
Ms. Barnes: We are talking about inherent self-government rights, senator, as you say.
Senator Buchanan: Not a third level of government.
Ms. Barnes: I thought I made that clear.
Senator Buchanan: I just wanted to make sure I heard correctly.
The Chairman: I have a question dealing with the Wek'eezhii land and water board. The bill provides for the establishment of a Wek'eezhii land and water board, which will assume many of the functions and powers of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. There is a concern by a number of companies operating in the area who have applications before the Mackenzie Valley board about how that transition matter will be dealt with.
Mr. Scott: We have been seized with those concerns as well. I would make the point, at least from the most recent letter that I received, that no one wants to hold up the legislation. They simply want us to be alert to this problem and give assurance that we believe that the transition can be made in an orderly fashion. Applications made to the board that existed prior to this will be able to flow seamlessly to the next process. I am advised that was discussed. We do not think that will be a problem, but we accept the fact that companies have asked us to reassure them, and we have.
Before I leave that point, we do have some numbers for you. We will try to be more precise, but we have been able to gather some together for today.
Ms. Isaak: With respect to your question about band membership respecting the North Slave Metis Alliance, we believe there are approximately 300 members of the North Slave Metis Alliance. Approximately 50 per cent, 150 of those, would be members of bands. That is not just bands in the Tlicho communities. They may be members of other bands in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, approximately 150, or 50 per cent, are not band members. That is our approximate figure.
Senator Fitzpatrick: What is the total band membership?
Ms. Isaak: It is about 3,500 or so.
The Chairman: I take it from your answer that the companies that presently have applications or could have applications for the Mackenzie Valley board can have some assurance that they will not be affected adversely in any way in terms of cost or having to start over an application process; and that the transition provisions will provide satisfaction to the companies that could be affected in having their applications before the present board. They will not have to incur additional costs in starting over or in any way be delayed, and so on; is that correct?
Mr. Scott: I have been given those assurances, but perhaps Ms. Isaak can offer more detail. In response to the inquiries that I received, I was given comfort.
Ms. Isaak: Certainly, parties to this agreement and the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board are aware of this situation and have agreed to work together to develop administrative procedures. They all share the objective that they do not want duplication, delays or any additional costs on the part of the proponents. Those proponents will all receive communication to that effect from the board.
Senator Buchanan: I watched one of the most intriguing programs that I have seen for a long time on CBC on the two diamond mines in the North. Are those mines located in the area under discussion?
Ms. Barnes: They are further north, but one of the Tlicho benefits has been that they have negotiated with two of the diamond mines, BHP Billiton and Diavik and have made human resource arrangements so that Tlicho people participate as workers in those diamond mines. Scholarship funds were set up as part of those agreements. They have been proactive and are engaged, but the mines are much further north.
It is a win-win relationship. I have visited the Diavik mine. It is amazing. If you had a good impression of it from watching a television program, I would suggest that you go and see it. Everything they did was state of the art.
Senator Buchanan: I would love to visit them sometime when the weather is 25 degrees.
Ms. Barnes: When I was up there, a person from the Tlicho territory was in charge of a lot of the human resource capacity building inside the territory at Ray Edzo. I visited both the diamond mine and the Ray Edzo community in the preparation of this bill.
Senator Buchanan: Do you have any idea how many people are currently employed in these two mines?
Ms. Barnes: I do not know the total, no.
The Chairman: Are there hundreds?
Ms. Barnes: It is like a small town.
The Chairman: I would advise you, Senator Buchanan, that I have started a process. This will be the second year that I have invited senators to come to the Northwest Territories and visit the diamond mine. I will add your name to the list.
Senator Buchanan: I was not on this committee last year.
The Chairman: You need not be a member of this committee.
Ms. Barnes: It is well worth it.
Mr. Scott: As a former committee chair, I admire your capacity to create goodwill among your members.
The Chairman: Are there any more questions for the minister? Do you have a closing statement, Mr. Minister?
Mr. Scott: Yes, I would just thank you all. These are exciting times. I will carry with me your comments about the Metis population. As you may know, the position of Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and federal interlocutor have never been combined before so I have a different perspective.
For this evening, however, I wish to thank you for the good questions. We are at your disposal throughout the course of the passage of this bill.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, minister. I would also thank Ms. Barnes and the other staff members.
We will now hear from the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Joseph Handley. Mr. Premier, would you mind introducing your staff? I notice that Minister Floyd Roland is with you. You have come well fortified to make your presentation.
Hon. Joseph L. Handley, Premier of the Northwest Territories and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: With me is Floyd Roland, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. At the table with me today is Mr. Erasmus, Director of Negotiations, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and Martin Goldney, legal counsel with our Department of Justice.
It is an honour to be here today to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government bill. I would thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for inviting me to appear before you, and I would also like to recognize you, Senator Sibbeston, and publicly acknowledge your leadership over the years in furthering Aboriginal rights in the Northwest Territories.
I would also like to acknowledge Grand Chief Joe Rabesca, who is not here tonight, for his Tlicho leadership and, most importantly, the Tlicho people, for whom this is the culmination of a long, hard and, I hope, fruitful journey.
As I did before the House of Commons standing committee in November, I want to express my full support for the rapid enactment of Bill C-14, which provides Canada's approval for the first comprehensive land, resources and self- government agreement in the Northwest Territories.
This agreement describes the Tlicho government's lawmaking authority over a number of territorial-type jurisdictions. It clarifies the future relationship between the Tlicho government, the GNWT and Canada. The agreement also provides the Tlicho people with economic benefits, including $150 million paid over 15 years and surface and subsurface rights over a 39,000 square kilometre block of land surrounding the four Tlicho communities.
The Tlicho agreement clarifies land ownership and jurisdiction over another large portion of the Northwest Territories. As a result, the ratification of the Tlicho agreement will not only be welcomed by the Tlicho people, but also by many people and companies who wish to invest in the Northwest Territories. This marks the beginning of a valuable contribution to the economic future of the Northwest Territories, as our economy will grow and prosper with the settlement of another land claim. As such, the implementation of the Tlicho agreement will also increase economic and political stability for the Tlicho people and for northerners and Canadians as a whole.
In addition to Bill C-14, three pieces of territorial legislation must be enacted to give effect to the Tlicho agreement. The Northwest Territories counterpart of this bill, which approved the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, was passed unanimously in October 2003 by our national assembly. In June 2004, the Government of the Northwest Territories passed the Tlicho Community Government Act. The final piece of legislation, the Tlicho Community Services Agency Act, has been reviewed by our standing committee, and I fully expect it will be passed by our legislative assembly when we resume sitting this month.
It is important to note that the Northwest Territories legislation required to ratify the Tlicho agreement cannot come into effect until the federal bill comes into force. Bill C-14 would approve and give effect to the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, the tax treatment agreement and provide legal recognition of the Tlicho agreement and Tlicho laws. It is the key step in bringing all ratifying legislation and the agreement itself into effect.
Mr. Chairman, if you permit, I would like to speak briefly to the process that led us to this point. The Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement was signed by Canada, the Tlicho and the GNWT in the Tlicho community of Rae Edzo, or Behchokò, on August 25, 2003, after more than 10 long and hard years of negotiations. In reality, the negotiations of this agreement took much longer when you take into account the negotiations of the Dene Metis Comprehensive Claim that was the origin of this claim.
For the Tlicho, the negotiation of this agreement has been a long, difficult and expensive process, as it was financed by loans from the Government of Canada which the Tlicho must pay back.
There have been many important events and hard-earned milestones on the way to this agreement. The Tlicho people worked with their neighbours, the Akaitcho and the Deh Cho, to negotiate agreements that ensure that each of the party's interests is protected in overlapping boundary areas. These side agreements demonstrate the willingness of Aboriginal peoples to collaborate so that self-government and land claims agreements can be negotiated without compromising third party interests.
The Tlicho agreement is unique in another fundamental way as it is the only land claim and self-government agreement that I am aware of that was initialled twice by the chief negotiators. After the first initialling in 2002, the three parties undertook an unprecedented public review and comment period during which they invited comments from all interested individuals and groups. More than 40 groups were directly invited to review the agreement and to comment. The review period included a series of meetings with the individual groups, including several public meetings on the agreement. This resulted in a number of changes to the agreement. More important, it provided an important public opportunity for interested parties to raise any issues of concern.
At the end of this process, the agreement was initialled for a second time, and the Tlicho people voted to ratify the agreement. A total of 93 per cent of eligible Tlicho voters participated in the ratification process. Eighty-four per cent of those voters were in favour of the agreement. I am sure that honourable senators will agree that, by any reasonable measure, this was an overwhelming endorsement of the agreement by the Tlicho people.
At effective date, the Tlicho will begin to implement their agreement and move forward to secure a prosperous future for their people. For these reasons, the Tlicho are understandably anxious to proceed with the last steps necessary to reach the effective date. The GNWT shares the Tlicho's view that Bill C-14 is the most critical step in this process.
Implementation of the Tlicho agreement supports the vision that the Government of the Northwest Territories set out in its strategic plan: ``Self-Reliant People, Communities and Northwest Territories — A Shared Responsibility.'' One of the key priorities in this plan is to negotiate fair deals with Canada and with Aboriginal governments that include settling outstanding land resources and self-government agreements. This vision supports our commitment as a legislature to work in partnership with Aboriginal governments toward greater self-determination for Aboriginal peoples over their lands and resources as well as their economic, social, cultural and political destiny.
We fully support the Tlicho people's desire to be full partners with Canada and the Northwest Territories and to work with us and other Aboriginal peoples toward other important goals such as resource revenue sharing and devolution.
The positive relationships that we have built with the Tlicho and other Aboriginal groups are critically important to the Northwest Territories. Each of us as leaders at the federal, territorial and self-government levels has a stake in continuing to foster these collaborative relationships.
By supporting this bill's passage, we send a clear signal to Aboriginal leaders across the nation that we support the inherent right of Aboriginal people to self-determination and to regain control over their lands and resources. It further demonstrates our commitment to partnerships that go hand in hand with our collective aim to finalize self- government in a fair and expedient manner.
Mr. Chairman, the Tlicho agreement is an example of how public and Aboriginal governments can work in collaboration, while ensuring all people's interests and rights are protected. All residents in Tlicho communities and on Tlicho lands will continue to be protected by the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
While the Tlicho agreement will establish an Aboriginal self-government for the Tlicho people, the community governments established under this agreement will represent both Tlicho and non-Tlicho citizens, and all residents will have a say in how they are represented. The principle of democracy is maintained throughout the Tlicho agreement. All eligible residents living in Tlicho communities or on Tlicho lands can vote for the community government councillors and for some members of the Tlicho government.
The intergovernmental services agreement is a sub-agreement to the Tlicho agreement. It requires the GNWT to establish the Tlicho community services agency to deliver programs and services to all residents in Tlicho communities, not only Tlicho citizens. This is yet another example of how public and Aboriginal governments can work in collaboration to ensure all people's interests and rights are protected.
The Tlicho agreement has set a new standard for land and self-government claims across the country. It provides certainty for Tlicho people, while leaving room for self-government to evolve over time. This is a principle we firmly support.
Both Canada and the Northwest Territories are committed to Aboriginal people having greater self-determination, increasing their independence and returning the rightful control of land to its original owners. This agreement and the legislation to approve it will move that vision forward. The legislation is the critical step toward the implementation of the Tlicho agreement, and one that the government of Northwest Territories hopes this committee and Parliament will support.
In closing, I wish to congratulate all three parties to the agreement, particularly the Tlicho team who have waited so long for this moment. I urge this committee to approve and Parliament to pass Bill C-14 as soon as possible — for the Tlicho, for other Aboriginal peoples across Canada, for the good of the Northwest Territories, and for all Canadians.
In closing, I would like to welcome all members of this committee to come to the Northwest Territories. I am sure that Senator Sibbeston would agree that the Northwest Territories has many riches to offer and is worth seeing, especially our diamond mines.
Senator Christensen: Welcome, Mr. Premier. In March of last year, the three levels of government signed the Northwest Territories land and resource development framework agreement. Several of those Aboriginal groups do not have their final agreements respecting their own land claims. In the Yukon, some of our First Nations groups had strong objections to concluding the devolution process before their land claims were finalized. Are you concerned that that will be a problem in your territory?
Mr. Handley: Yes, we are concerned, because there are some areas in the territories, particularly in the south, where we do not have settled land claims or settled Aboriginal rights agreements, and the people in those areas would, in many cases, prefer that we move ahead with the settlement of their specific claims first. However, recognizing the settled claims we have in the territories and the right that those people have to get on with the implementation of their claims, as well as the rate at which resources are leaving the territories — diamonds, oil and gas — I think the great majority of people, including the Aboriginal people, would agree that we need to settle devolution, that is, the right to manage and permit those activities, and also have a share of the resource revenues as soon as possible.
The BHP diamond mine is getting close to halfway through its life. That is a concern to us because we will never get the resource revenues retroactively. People generally recognize that we have two processes that will move in parallel, but we cannot wait because it may be too late and much of the resources will be gone.
Senator Christensen: Do you think that there perhaps will not be the same problems that arose in the Yukon with that issue?
Mr. Handley: Some people have raised with me concerns about moving ahead with devolution and resource revenue sharing, but generally the majority of people want us to get on with this process quickly.
Senator St. Germain: It has been brought to our attention by the Metis community that their situation has not been dealt with in its entirety. Are you concerned that these people will still be able to obtain their constitutional rights under section 35 if we proceed as we are with Tlicho? I am referring to the Metis who live on that land.
Mr. Handley: Mr. Chairman, it is always a concern if someone may not be able to exercise his rights as a Canadian. The issue with regard to the Metis in the North Slave area, as we call it, is one that is within the federal government's jurisdiction. We cannot move ahead of the federal government on it because it is not our land; it is still federal land, so it is really an issue for Mr. Scott.
Senator St. Germain: In all seriousness, you are the government of these people. I believe that maybe Minister Scott and the federal government are responsible. You say that you cannot do much about it, but the fact is that you likely can because you are the government of that territory. That is why I am asking you. I am asking you not to try to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, but this matter has been raised with us.
We talk about the principle of democracy. We will be pursuing this in the course of these hearings. I certainly would like to better understand the territorial government's position on situations like this where claims are being made and where there are, possibly, overlaps. It boils down to an overlapping situation. That may not be the correct wording; but it has to be a concern. As you point out, in the southern part of the NWT, you have a problem establishing who has jurisdiction over or who can claim ownership to certain lands.
Mr. Handley: The people who live on the south side of the lake are currently in negotiations, so who has what rights will be determined through the negotiating process.
Coming back to the North Slave region where we have Metis people living, the people have applied to the federal government for the right to negotiate their own agreement. As I say, that comes under federal government jurisdiction. We have assisted the Metis people. We have paid for them to come here and to meet and lobby the federal government. We, as a territorial government, do not have the same jurisdiction as does a province. We cannot move ahead on our own on that because it is Crown land.
While the Tlicho agreement contains a provision that, if the North Slave Metis were to negotiate rights at some future date, those could also be provided for through this agreement. There is a provision for that eventuality.
Senator St. Germain: It has to be of concern in all of these negotiations. I can recall in the negotiation for the Nisga'a agreement, non-Aboriginals were a significant part of the discussion. With regard to non-Aboriginals, you point out that the principle of democracy is maintained throughout. You go on to say that all eligible residents living in Tlicho communities or on Tlicho lands can vote for the community government counsellors and for some members. What is the restriction?
Mr. Handley: I will refer that to Mr. Goldney.
Mr. Martin Goldney, Legal Counsel, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs of the Northwest Territories: Is the question: What is the restriction regarding voting for members?
Senator St. Germain: That is right. In the premier's delivery, he said all eligible residents living in Tlicho communities or on Tlicho lands can vote for the community government counsellors and for some members of Tlicho government. It just sounds as if some people will be given certain privileges over others. I want a clarification of that, if I may, please.
Mr. Goldney: Under this provisions, all residents will be able to vote in the community elections, recognizing it is a community of not just Aboriginal people. However, a minimum number of seats, 50 per cent, will be reserved for Tlicho citizens, and the chief, effectively the mayor of the community, will be a Tlicho citizen.
Senator St. Germain: Am I correct that the balance of power will rest in the hands of the Tlicho then?
Mr. Goldney: Yes, there is a balance of power. I do not know if I would characterize in it quite that way. We also must recognize that 90 per cent of the people in these communities are Tlicho citizens.
Senator St. Germain: I hear you, sir. I am just concerned about minority interests and the possibility that they will appear before us and that we only have this one opportunity to speak to you people. I see there are still some members of Minister Scott's group here. Perhaps they can give me an answer to this later.
Senator Buchanan: I have a question about your natural resources. You were here when our last witnesses testified. Quite frankly, I am intrigued by those diamond mines.
Senator St. Germain: You want samples.
Senator Buchanan: Did you bring some with you?
I knew you had diamond mines but did not realize how big those mines were until I watched the CBC program. That program also indicated that the geologists who initially discovered the diamonds in the Northwest Territories have indicated that this is only the beginning, that the probability is that you have much more in the way of developments to come in the future. Is that correct, as far as you know?
Mr. Handley: Yes, that is correct, not just on the diamond mining side but with regard to other minerals as well. We have two operating diamond mines employing directly at the mines probably in the neighbourhood of 1,600 to 1,800 people now. We have one diamond mine under construction, owned by DeBoers, and at least one other diamond deposit that has been determined to be commercial. Those are just the easy-to-find diamonds so far. We expect there are a lot more.
There are also gold and other minerals in the Northwest Territories. It is a mineral-rich area. In addition, we have oil and gas.
Senator Buchanan: You will get to a point where you will compete with Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
Mr. Handley: We hope we do. Our oil and gas potential is huge compared to even the diamond industry. It is probably seven to eight times what we will find on the hard rock mineral side.
Senator Buchanan: Therefore, the future looks good.
Mr. Handley: Yes, the future is very bright on the economic side, and I think it is important that we get these agreements settled so that politically, socially and culturally we have something that everyone wins with.
The Chairman: I have a question for the premier. This is in part to provide information or educate Canadians throughout our country. The Northwest Territories, as I stated earlier, is a vast area, 1.17 million square kilometres. It goes right from the 60th parallel to the North Pole. You, Mr. Handley, are premier of the Northwest Territories, which, as a territorial government, is not as developed and whole as if it were a provincial government, but nevertheless you are a government that has jurisdiction and governance over a large track of land and you have provincial-type powers. Yet, when you make your presentation you talk about the Northwest Territories being committed to Aboriginal people having greater determination, increasing their independence and returning the rightful control of lands to its original owners. You speak in other sections about the right of Aboriginal people to self-determination and regaining control over the lands and resources.
I suppose many southerners would wonder at your statements. I think provincial governments have historically been jealous of their powers in governance, but here you are, head of a territorial government, talking about lands and governance being given to Aboriginal people. Perhaps you would comment on that so that Canadians can understand the situation in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Handley: About 50 per cent of the population of the Northwest Territories is Aboriginal people whose ancestors have been on that land for hundreds if not thousands of years. The majority live in smaller communities up and down the Mackenzie River. The people who live there saw the church and the fur traders come. They were followed by industry. Through the federal government, they assumed the right to come and take the resources from the land. There were no settlements — that is, no land claim agreements, and so on — to enforce the treaties. They just came in and took over the land. We recognize people's traditional rights — that they have lived and harvested on the land for many, many generations. We need to have these kinds of land claim settlements that clarify the guidelines, what the rules will be and who has what rights.
In most of the cases, the people in the Northwest Territories did not take reserve status. About 90 per cent of the people in the Tlicho area are Tlicho beneficiaries. They make up the majority. Currently, we have two reserves in the Northwest Territories. We recognize people's traditional rights to those. We recognize that there must be some kind of agreement between ourselves as the government and the Aboriginal people.
With this bill we are currently in the process of having negotiated self-government. We are negotiating self- government with many other communities and land claim groups. It is our belief that there is a need for a central government — that is, a Government of the Northwest Territories — to deal with the broad issues. However, at the same time, the delivery of programs and services at the community level can be very well managed by the people who have lived in those communities for a long, long time.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions arising?
Senator St. Germain: I would like to thank the Premier for coming here tonight because it is important for him to represent his people, which he has done very well.
We look forward to working with you on this and on many other agreements.
The Chairman: If there are no further questions, I would thank you, Premier Handley, for coming all the way from the North to Ottawa. It is a long trip. Thank you for your presentation. I am sure it gives members some assurance and comfort knowing that the territorial government is very supportive of the Tlicho agreement. That will help us in our deliberations.
Mr. Handley: I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to do so. As I said in my opening comments, I really urge that we move this bill ahead as quickly as we can and have passage of it. The Tlicho people have worked long and hard. We see it as an important milestone in the development of the territories in a way that everyone benefits.
I certainly join you, Mr. Chairman, in inviting all the senators to the Northwest Territories to see that part of Canada of which we are very proud.
The Chairman: About two years ago, I invited senators to the North and a number did visit Yellowknife. While we were there, we were able to go to the legislative assembly, where Mr. Handley has offices, and we were treated very well. We were provided with a nice meal and a nice setting for a get together. I am sure that is possible again.
I have invited senators to travel to the Northwest Territories to see the diamond mines. Unfortunately, we probably cannot visit in the middle of summer. This year, we may do that at the end of March and early April.
This is a housekeeping matter. This Senate committee is undertaking a study on Aboriginal businesses throughout the country to learn why some Aboriginal people succeed in business and others do not. We want to determine what elements contribute to success. We have set up a subcommittee of this large Aboriginal Peoples Committee. We plan to go on a fact-finding trip to the Northwest Territories on March 7. We were hoping to go to Yellowknife and to Inuvik. So far one member and myself will go. However, there is still an opportunity for other members to come on that fact- finding trip if anyone is interested. I leave that with honourable senators. If you are interested, please let me know.
With that, if there are no other matters to be discussed, I will adjourn the meeting.
The committee adjourned.