Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of February 9, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 9, 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 6:25 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome. We will begin with a Tlicho prayer. Please stand.
(Prayer in Tlicho by Mr. Phillip Husky)
The Chairman: This evening we will hear from Mr. Bill Erasmus from the Assembly of First Nations and the Northwest Territories. Mr. Erasmus was for many years the President of the Dene Nation in the North. I understand that the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Phil Fontaine, will also be here in a few minutes, with legal counsel for the AFN.
Before we proceed, I will introduce members of the committee, who are Senator Buchanan, from Nova Scotia; Senator Watt, from Northern Quebec; Senator Christensen, from Yukon; Senator Léger, from New Brunswick; and Senator St. Germain, from British Columbia.
Mr. Erasmus, please proceed.
Mr. Bill Erasmus, Northwest Territories Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations: I am the regional chief for the Assembly of First Nations in the Northwest Territories. As the Chairman said, our national chief and staff are on the way. I would prefer to wait for them before I begin. We had sent copies of our presentation to the committee, but I apologize that they are not here on the table.
The Chairman: Mr. Erasmus, you were President of the Dene Nation for a number of years in the Northwest Territories. It would be useful and interesting to hear about events that have led to the Tlicho's achievements in respect of the land claims agreement. That would be good background information for the committee.
Mr. Erasmus: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will not go to the actual script that I had prepared. This exercise is beneficial. I had been thinking about the great deal of history that exists between the Dene and the Crown. Our people became organized, and you heard about that part of the history from the Tlicho leaders yesterday. They talked about how they organized themselves by following the lead of some of their very great leaders, Monfwi and Bruneau. In the Northwest Territories, we were under the impression that we had a peace and friendship treaty with the Crown and that we had not surrendered any of our rights, liberties or privileges.
Our people entered into treaties in 1899, 1900, 1921 and 1922. We stayed close to the land and continued to live our way of life. It was not until quite a bit later, after the Second World War when the economy began to change worldwide and we needed more assistance from Canada, that we realized that Canada had a different version of the treaty. Our understanding was that our rights were intact such that we were to live our lives as we always had. We found out that the treaty version that Canada had was different. It stated that we had given up our land and rights, and that we were subjects of the Crown.
We had to organize ourselves, and we were fortunate that we had people in the room like James Washee, who belonged to the first generation of people to become organized and to speak out in favour of the rights that we knew had always existed.
Then the chiefs got together and went before the Canadian courts, who ruled in our favour. They said that, indeed, our rights were still intact. It helped to mould history. The Calder case in British Columbia in the early 1970s and the Powley case proved that we still had rights and they forced Canada to deal with us. At that time, the policy for land claims began. The Dene people were the only ones invited to the table with existing treaties, and we were asked to try to clarify them.
From the early 1970s to now, the Tlicho have been able to clarify those treaties. It has taken a long time, and that is why there is so much excitement to be in at the final stages of their agreement.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. I welcome the Grand Chief, Mr. Phil Fontaine, to the committee as well as Senator Gustafson, who is from Saskatchewan. The country is well represented this evening.
Mr. Fontaine, please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Phillip Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations: I apologize for being late, but I listened with great interest to the words being spoken by my colleague Regional Chief Erasmus. There is nothing that was said that I disagree with. I support all of what he said wholeheartedly, but I wish the indulgence of the committee here to read into the record my presentation.
Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation here this evening on what is a historic occasion for us all. As you know, and I apologize for the pronunciation here, the Tlicho have worked very hard to get to this point. They have done their homework and their government has already passed into the law the agreement as it is written. We know the Crown in right of Canada has also worked very hard to get to this point. The Government of the Northwest Territories has also done its work as it continues to pass legislation for the effective date to be realized.
As stated earlier, this treaty was dealt with a little differently. After first initialling, it was opened up to the general public for debate. It was then initialled once again, a practice never heard of before in the history of Canada. One might say this is parliamentary democracy at its best. Therefore, the Tlicho have had to wait longer than usual for final assent.
This historic treaty application recognizes certain significant factors. For example, this agreement signifies two autonomous entities coming together, in peace and as allies, to better the country we know as Canada. As the Senate has stated in earlier sessions, it is obvious that everyone wins. The outcome is the establishment of rules and authorities that provide for economic and political stability in that particular part of the world, the Dene homeland. This agreement re-enforces the reality that First Nations are a founding entity that entrenches their place in the Constitution Act 1982 and solidifies section 35. It gives full expression to the reality that the Dene-Tlicho elders have always expressed.
This brings us to the question of ``third order of government,'' which was a term that was questioned by this committee when the Honourable Minister Andy Scott appeared last week. This confusing term does not help anyone. The term is similar to ``third party interests.'' It is a term which messes up the Dene. There are only two parties in this instance, the Tlicho under section 35 and the Crown in right of Canada under section 91. The Government of the Northwest Territories, as you know, falls directly under section 91 of federal authority since it is not a province and has not acquired responsible government. In order to receive responsible government, or ``province hood'' it must receive consent from the Dene as proven during the Charlottetown discussion in the early 1990s.
The Canadian federal system allows for three orders of government that include the federal, provincial and municipal order of government that is really delegated government from the provinces. This agreement to which we have referred is not that. This treaty enhances Confederation as it should have been in the first instance. We know the rights, privileges and liberties of the Tlicho are inherent and do not derive from the Constitution Act of 1982. They are by nature inextinguishable rights that the Crown has no authority to take away.
In other words, the Constitution Acts of 1982 were designed to provide legal and constitutional protection and avenues to express the rights of the Dene through existing processes in Canada, not barriers, impediments or burdens before our societies. The property rights and territorial integrity remains intact. Therefore, Dene laws are recognized and implemented and will reciprocate the Crown. The treaty articles and provisions must be taken seriously and implemented to the fullest, as discussed by the Auditor General in recent reports to this government. Otherwise, the many efforts of the parties involved will be in vain.
Mr. Erasmus: Mr. Chairman, we have decided to ``tag team,'' so I will read the rest.
This international instrument includes offshore rights within Treaty 11, designed to promote and protect this country as applied in the October 7 Royal Proclamation of 1763. The Tlicho are part of Treaty 11, and it extends north to the Beaufort Sea. In closing, the Assembly of First Nations wishes to congratulate the parties and encourage this committee to move swiftly to clause-by-clause reading.
Finally, on a matter that respects the federal Crown, it is important to make mention that the original terms to negotiate and express the Dene interests, in this instance the Tlicho, were established in the early 1970s. After Judge Morrow ruled that Treaties Nos. 8 and 11 were indeed peace and friendship treaties that included an economic interest in their land in the famous Paulette case, the federal government then entered into contact with the Dene Nation as the principals. At that time, the Crown and all of the Dene communities were involved.
This original agreement, under the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau and Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien, provided a financial grant to the Dene to be at the table. Part of this agreement required the Dene to prove their traditional land use and occupancy, which they had to do.
At the time of winning the court case, the original agreement was that the Dene were not provided loans but given a grant to get themselves organized, and get all of their negotiations, and so on, done. Over time, this financial agreement between the Tlicho and the federal government was unilaterally changed by Canada. Therefore, what originally was a financial grant became a financial loan, requiring the Tlicho and other Dene within the Dene Nation to repay out of the financial components in their treaty. What happened is that, over time, because of policy and because of changes over the 30-year period, where we had originally begun with the financial loan, people were then asked to repay.
Mr. Chairman, as the past president and national chief of the Dene nation, it is my duty to bring this forth and ask that you petition this matter. The Tlicho and other Dene citizens who come before you must know and understand this part of history and their relationships with the government, and adhere to the original principals established that brought them to the table. We insist that the federal Crown honour their commitment and follow through as originally intended. The spirit and intent will guide the parties to a full understanding and implementation.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to be present at this historic time in the history of our people.
Mr. Chairman, that constitutes our draft. If you have questions, we are prepared to answer them.
The Chairman: I want to thank you both, Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Erasmus,you're your presence. Your honour us with your presence. It is good that you can be here as leaders on the national scene representing and obviously speaking in support of the Tlicho people, who are here with their agreement.
With that, I will open the discussion to senators who wish to ask questions.
Senator St. Germain: I would again like to welcome, on behalf of the committee, the elders, the chiefs and the members of the Tlicho Nation who are here with us tonight.
It is an indication of the great interest that they have in this agreement, and certainly none of us, from a non-partisan point of view, are taking it lightly. Any questions that we are asking, we are asking for clarification, and possibly the clarifications that we establish here will assist in other negotiations for other groups of Aboriginal peoples who seek self-government and land claim settlements.
It is in that spirit that I would like to put the questions forward, and the first thing is that I think it was the Grand Chief who asked that we try to expedite this matter. We will do our best but I cannot make any promises, simply because of the complexities of personalities and the makeup of the Senate. Both the chairman and I have agreed that we will do everything we possibly can to make certain that we get on with the business of getting this bill through to Royal Assent.
A question that I have of you, Mr. Erasmus — as you know I have been up there in your territory, so I will throw a cat amongst the pigeons — when I went up to your country originally on Bill C-68, I think Nunavut got an injunction in regards to the gun registry. What has happened in your nation since I met with all your chiefs? Was it George that was chairing the meeting or was that you?
Mr. Erasmus: It was I.
Senator St. Germain: Do you have any comment on that legislation and how it has affected your people?
Mr. Erasmus: We had the meeting in Fort Providence, and you were one of the people who was working in conjunction with the AFN and other Aboriginal people in trying to secure people's rights. The answer might be long but I think I have to explain some of it.
The Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Alberta and other provinces were not in support of the legislation when it was passed. It was taken to court by those provinces, and the territorial government was a party to that litigation. The judgment at the time was interesting because the judge said that there are three components that ought to be looked into further. One was with respect to the Aboriginal peoples because of our treaties, which are valid because of the different agreements, because of our special nature, et cetera. The second one was the northern aspect, people in the North, how their living is different. Firearms legislation was not designed for people in the North, and that it was more a southern problem and they were trying to address that. The third one was to look at urban versus rural. The judgment said that.
In light of that, the Inuit, if I remember correctly, chose to take the matter to court and because they have specific provisions in their agreement about licensing, and so on, the judge ruled that it was a stay. There is an arrangement with the Inuit that they will not suspend the judgment so that they will not get arrested or be bothered by the enforcement officers.
In our instance, Mr. Fontaine was the national chief at the time. I was fortunate to have the firearms file, and we tried to work with Canada because we believed that we had a treaty and Aboriginal rights. If you look at our treaties, regardless of whether they are seen as oral treaties. or even the written versions, it is clear that we have a mode of life and that is not to be interfered with. That goes further in that, in the treaty, it also mentions that we get ammunition from the Crown. That signifies symbolically that our way of life of hunting, trapping, fishing, being on the land, having access to the land, must always continue.
With that in mind, we began to talk to Canada, and we wanted to get into an agreement where they would recognize that we have jurisdiction over that whole area, with firearms and so on. Our talks advanced to quite a degree but because of the instability, I guess, of the Canadian government — because we have gone through three different elections since then — it has been difficult to come up with an agreement. I do not mention that to imply that Canada is unstable, but as you know there have been a number of elections, and so we have been dealing with different ministers. We are at the point where the RCMP does not want to enforce either, because it costs a lot of money to do that. The understanding is that the legislation was not designed in conjunction with them. You know the rest. The headlines are telling us that it should have cost two million and it is now costing somewhere in the billions, so it is not working.
We have not come to an agreement. The RCMP has agreed to work with us. If we are out hunting, they will not come and try and confiscate our guns as long as safety is adhered to. We continue to practice as we have always done, which is to teach our young people at a young age how to use firearms and to be on the land.
Senator St. Germain: I think, Mr. Chairman, I deviated from the agreement. I think it is part of the agreement because of the ability to govern yourselves in the areas that concern you. If you recall, at the time my concern was not for the south. It was for our Aboriginal peoples right across the board and their ability to maintain their rights under section 35, and whatever rights they have that flow from 1763.
To get back to the agreement, at the first meeting I raised five items. They were that the agreement failed to achieve final settlement. In some ways, I think that is good. These are questions that came from the House of Commons as a result of a study that was done over there.
My main concern in regard to this legislation is with respect to the overlap situation. Overlap includes neighbouring tribes or neighbouring groups of Aboriginal peoples as well as the Metis situation. We had the Tlicho make a presentation to us and I think they have answered most of these questions, but I will ask you, Mr. Erasmus, who is from that area. You are very familiar with that area. With respect to the agreements — and apparently there are four overlap agreements that have been signed that go with this particular agreement. It was pointed out to us that the Metis had not been consulted, and the Metis brought that to our attention. We will hear from the Metis representative later. I would like to know what you are hearing about this aspect of it in your part of the country, Mr. Erasmus.
Mr. Erasmus: Did you say that the Metis were consulted?
Senator St. Germain: The Metis were consulted. Some of them came to us initially and said that they were not consulted. We have since heard that there has been certain consultation. There is litigation that is pending. It put the minister and the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Barnes, who is with us here this evening, in a complex situation in answering because the matter was before the court. Some information I received leads me to think that a committee of this nature has the right to probe into these issues regardless of whether they are before the courts.
I know you are familiar with the area, you are familiar with the people, and you are the best person to ask as to just what is taking place. Not to say that the grand chief does not know what is going on, but I think he is from Manitoba, where I am originally from.
Mr. Fontaine: I support Mr. Erasmus. I am here for moral support.
Mr. Erasmus: I thank you for having such confidence in me. I will have to remember that when we tackle the other agreements we still have before us.
Senator St. Germain: You have always been honest with me. There is no reason that that should not continue.
Mr. Erasmus: I appreciate that. I will give a little history because the way you put the question before me is really interesting.
We made mention of the land use study that was done between our people. We have always viewed ourselves as Dene. Anyone living in our part of the country is either Dene or not. It is very simple. What happened is that we had a long discussion amongst ourselves in the 1970s, and part of the 1980s, and after much discussion it was agreed that an individual is either a descendant or he is not a descendant, and you cannot sit somewhere on the fence. There are different ways to become a descendant. You can be adopted, you can marry in or you can marry out. Your eyes could be blue but you could still be a descendant. We have a whole method of defining who we are as Dene citizens.
The difficulty is that Canada, over the years, has divided our people. Canada designed an Indian Act that called some of our people Indians, and called some of us Metis, and called some of us half-breeds, and called us all sorts of other things, but we have survived, and we call ourselves Dene. One of the things that we did in the early 1970s was to insist that we be called that, because we are not Indians. Indians come from India and other places.
We had a declaration in Senator Sibbeston's hometown of Fort Simpson in 1975, I believe it was. I was living there at the time. I was working in the community and I remember quite well, I was in the hall when they did it. We passed the Dene declaration, and that declared that we were a nation of people. We were seeking self-determination, and we had the right to define ourselves.
There is a lot of history to that. Growing up, there was no such thing as Metis. We were the people. It was not until after the court cases that I mentioned that suddenly Canada asked us to say who we were: Are you Metis non-status? Are you Dene? What table are you at? We went through the struggle amongst our people and we decided to organize together. We had a Dene-Metis claim, and we had that until 1990 when Canada changed its policy. Rather than having all of us at the table, on November 7, 1990, the minister under the Mulroney administration insisted that we go regional. We had to break into five linguistic regional entities. This is the third regional entity that is coming before the Senate to get Royal Assent.
In terms of land use, what we did was prove that we were the occupants of the land from time immemorial. We got a sample of our people to put on maps where they always went, and rather than asking people to have just men, for example, do that, we also asked women, so a certain sample of our people were women because many of our women can hunt and trap just like men. We did a sample. It included people whom Canada called Metis, or half-breeds or whatever. They are relatives, descendants, so we have a Dene-Metis land-use occupancy study.
Within that, if I look at the land-use maps, we have them, they are digitized, they are owned by our people, and it does not identify people overlapping each other. All of our land is used. It is all digitized. You can point anywhere on a map and we can bring out information that shows that our people have always used it, even though we do not have a hundred per cent sample. There is no such thing as Metis.
However, if people insist on calling themselves Metis, there is no land out there that is Metis land. There is no such thing. There is Dene land, and if the Metis are going to have rights to those lands, if that is what they want to call themselves, they will have to get those rights from the Dene. That has always been our understanding, internally and with Canada.
Senator St. Germain: Yet Metis are Dene, as far as you are concerned, if they so wish to be?
Mr. Erasmus: They can call themselves that but they are descendants of our people. Their rights come from us; their rights do not come from Canada. They are Metis because we allowed them to be Dene, and they do exist.
Senator St. Germain: The five regions are Gwich'in, Sahtu, Tlicho, Akaitcho and Deh Cho.
Senator Buchanan: I must tell you that I am very pleased to be a member of this committee. I go back a long time in government. The reason I am so pleased to be a member of this committee is that I was a participant, as Premier of Nova Scotia for 13 years, in Aboriginal, federal and provincial meetings here in Ottawa. I believe they extended through 1978, 1981, 1985, 1987, and 1990. They included the chiefs of the great Aboriginal nation of Mi'kmaqs in Nova Scotia.
I also participated between 1978 and 1982, leading to the Constitution Act of 1982 and the unanimous agreement that we achieved at that time for the Aboriginals of Canada. That section 35, protecting and preserving Aboriginal treaties, was constitutionalized at that time.
I am also interested in your comments today and the term ``offshore rights'' for, as I understand it, the Dene nation, under Treaty 11 of 1763. Offshore rights are, of course, very important and vital to the future of Nova Scotia. Like you, and your treaty, which extends your rights offshore — and I was not aware of this — in fact, extends your rights territorially to the Beaufort Sea. It is extremely important that that right is preserved and protected for you because, in Nova Scotia, in the Constitution Act of 1867, what many people do not know is that the territory of Nova Scotia at that time was defined as the present territory of the colony, and also extending 200-leagues offshore, including the great island of Sable and around the great island of Sable.
From 1978 until 1983, I negotiated, with the help of many others, the first offshore oil and gas agreements with the federal government, and signed it with Mr. Trudeau in 1983, and then negotiated a second agreement in 1986 with Prime Minister Mulroney. Those agreements were then passed into law in the Parliament of Canada and in the Legislature of Nova Scotia. Of course, those agreements, which included 100 per cent of revenues from natural gas and oil which would include our provincial tax, royalties and leasing fees, were to come to the people of Nova Scotia. Production got under way in 1999. It has taken a few years to bring that to fruition but, as you know, that occurred a few weeks ago and 100 per cent of the royalties are now coming to Nova Scotia. I want you to remember those kinds of historic things that happened in my province.
As far as the Dene nation is concerned, I understand that your offshore rights now extend right to the Beaufort Sea, which there is no question would contain a lot of mineral resources, oil, gas, et cetera.
I am very pleased to be again participating in discussions with the Aboriginal nations of Canada.
Mr. Fontaine: We are pleased that Senator Buchanan is so supportive. We welcome support from all quarters with respect to this agreement.
Senator Christensen: I am very supportive of the agreement and want to see it passed.
Chief Fontaine, the Assembly of First Nations is a national organization that advocates for First Nations communities across the country. Does the AFN have a role in any of the land claims negotiations that take place?
Mr. Fontaine: We do not have a direct role, unless we are asked to participate, but our mandate does not extend to negotiations of land claims agreements. That is a matter that belongs to First Nations governments themselves.
Senator Christensen: Do you have any opinion of why most of the settlements that have been achieved to date are in the North as opposed to other parts of the country?
Mr. Fontaine: One might argue that people in the North are more enlightened than those in the South.
Senator Christensen: I will agree with that.
Mr. Fontaine: People are anxious to move on. This is an agreement that is good for the Tlicho and, because the Tlicho have decided that it is good for them, the Assembly of First Nations, as a national organization, supports them.
Senator Christensen: In your presentation you say that the Canadian federal system allows for three orders of government: federal, provincial and municipal. You then say that this treaty enhances Confederation, as it should. We know that the rights, privileges and liabilities of the Tlicho are inherent and do not derive their powers from the Constitution Act, 1982. They are, by their nature, inextinguishable rights, and the property rights and territorial integrity remain intact.
In your presentation to the House of Commons, you described the government inherent rights policy as deficient and flawed, and said that municipal-type government powers, which are largely delegated, do not apply here.
How would you describe the governing structure that has been set out in this agreement? Where does it fit? How do you see the structure? I am thinking about the Yukon Territory where we have the Umbrella Final Agreement. The First Nations there are very involved in all government through the boards, which are a part of their land claims agreements. Our environmental legislation was a requirement of that agreement. They are now very much an integral part of our territory. It is meshing.
Mr. Erasmus: I explained earlier that at one time we had, like in the Yukon, one umbrella agreement, but we broke into regions and each region will design their regional autonomy and they will reciprocate their rights and jurisdictions with Canada. In the end, though, we will have to have a model that includes all of our people residing in the North.
Over time, we have looked at different models. For example, Jim Burke, a well-known individual in the North, commissioned a study. At that time we were ahead of ourselves. These models that we designed envisioned a number of ways that we could govern ourselves and all the residents of the North. However, we did not have an agreement like the Tlicho agreement that sets out the authority people will have at the local level. This talks about that. It talks about how they can take care of themselves. They have done a lot of work and they have the experience. The premier talked about it and the chief talked about their experience. They are ready to do it.
The other regions will get to the point where the Tlicho are, and then we will have to design a model that includes all of us. Some of those powers might include health, which involves all of us, or some land rights or financial matters, and so on.
Senator Christensen: Where does this fit in the scheme of things in the levels of government?
Mr. Erasmus: This agreement allows the Tlicho to define who they are. They come from a particular piece of land and have their own reality, and they have come to terms with Canada. The agreement defines the powers and authorities that they have always had.
We have always said that section 35 is full. We have everything that any other society has. They have defined some of that and they are now getting it entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. They do not deal with all authorities. They put some in abeyance. For example, they will not establish an army. There is no need to do that.
This is certainly the agreement that has gone the furthest. Over time, we have gone step by step to reach this point.
Senator Buchanan: I want to make it very clear that my comments on section 35 were in no way intended to indicate that in 1981-82 the premiers, the Prime Minister and the Aboriginal groups in any way created those rights. We wanted to ensure that the inherent rights of Aboriginals in Canada would be constitutionalized for certainty in the future because, as years go by, people forget.
Senator Watt: I would like to deal with three issues brought forward by Mr. Erasmus.
To your knowledge, when were your people given the right to vote in regard to the treaty? When they were given the right to vote and participate in a national political process, did they then, and only then, become Canadians? Would you enlighten me on that? It is an interesting subject.
Mr. Erasmus: It is. I think of this a lot because I was fortunate to be born before we had the right to vote. People complain about not having the right to vote, but we all know Canadian history. I was born in 1954, and it was not until 1960 that we were considered Canadians. The problem was that Diefenbaker never asked us.
Senator St. Germain: He had given it to you.
Mr. Erasmus: On their own terms, they said that these people whom we made treaties with, international treaties, valid treaties, will now become Canadians and we will give them the right to vote. We will also allow them to consume alcohol and other things.
The problem was that they never asked us. In international law, and now Canadian law, and so on, it is very clear that if you are to do anything like that, you must consult with the people concerned and get their consent. We became Canadians, I guess, and it is as if we have dual citizenship. I believe that the Tlicho have the right to have their own passport, because they are Dene first, and its inherent, and the Constitution respects that. They now are entering into Confederation, so to speak, with this agreement. They are entering into Confederation on their own terms. Canada has agreed, so they have dual citizenship.
It might mean, for example, that the Metis may be able to go this far also, especially if they call themselves descendants. If they agree that they are descendants of our people, what will happen is, if there was an indigenous hockey team, for example, these guys could have their own passport, they could play in the Olympics in Vancouver in 2010 and beat Canada for the gold medal.
Senator St. Germain: You did make mention that there are Metis with blue eyes.
Senator Watt: You mentioned in your presentation that your nation is being fractured, not by you but by the outside system. I believe you covered this when you were answering Senator Christensen. If there is a possibility down the road that you might have to revisit this matter and come up with an inclusive agreement with the Crown, what can we do as senators? When we table this bill in the Senate chamber, should we consider attaching an explanation or an observation? From time to time we do attach information that we feel is important and needs to be addressed. If you want us to do that, perhaps we can look at that.
You also mentioned financial aspects that go back quite a few years that have been changed by the government. Should we also consider addressing that matter in order to restore the original intent of an agreement that was signed between the two parties? I leave that with you, Mr. Erasmus, and with your people. If you would like us to do something about those two areas immediately, perhaps we can highlight it and help you to revisit that down the road.
Mr. Erasmus: The agreement provides for the parties to reopen if they so wish, and I believe those things are in other agreements.
On the financial matter, I do not believe that the agreement has to be reopened for that. That is more of a policy issue. The minister or the Prime Minister has discretion.
Senator Watt: I am not talking about opening up the agreement. I am talking about sending a text along with this bill as observations. It actually is, in a sense, a message to the other House.
Mr. Erasmus: I believe that is something that the Tlicho and the parties here need to work out. We merely bring it out as an observation.
Senator Watt: We will look at that.
Senator St. Germain: Mr. Erasmus, you have set out the five regions into which the Dene nation is broken up. You go right to the Beaufort. The Inuvialuit are further north. Are they affected by this?
Mr. Erasmus: The Inuvialuit were originally part of the other Inuit across the country. Then they formed COPE, Committee of Aboriginal Peoples Entitlement. They made an agreement before the Inuit did. What is taking place right now, which is interesting, is that those people are in discussions with the Gwich'in, and they are working on a joint governance model that will come forward at some point. That is how that has evolved.
The Chairman: I thank you for coming before us and providing us with the information. Your presentation will certainly add to our deliberation here.
Mr. Bill Enge, President, North Slave Metis Alliance: It is comforting having a chairman who is Metis himself, and coming from the Northwest Territories, so I can see I am among friendly company here.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin my presentation, I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for inviting the North Slave Metis Alliance to voice some of its views and concerns to this committee about Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement.
My name is Bill Enge, and I am the president of the North Slave Metis Alliance and the Yellowknife Metis Nation Local 66, a community-based Metis organization. I have been the president of Metis Local 66 in Yellowknife for the past 10 years and I ascended to the presidency of the North Slave Metis Alliance in November. Therefore, I have quite a long history with respect to the land claims developments going on in the North Slave region and across the Northwest Territories.
In that regard, nine years ago, former North Slave Metis Alliance president and current Rae/Edzo Metis Nation Local 64 president, Sholto Douglas and I started working together on achieving a land claim and self-government agreement for the North Slave Metis land claim beneficiaries. To realize such an agreement, we concluded that we needed to create a regional North Slave Metis organization in order to assert the collective Aboriginal rights of the North Slave Metis land claim beneficiaries. To that end, in 1996, Sholto Douglas and I successfully founded the North Slave Metis Alliance, when community-based Yellowknife Metis council president Clem Paul agreed to co-found the North Slave Metis Alliance with us.
The North Slave Metis Alliance, notwithstanding tremendous challenges to its political, economic and social mandates, achieved its goals in every arena that the organization targeted. One of our great successes came a year after the formation of the North Slave Metis Alliance when the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and Dogrib Treaty 11 Tribal Council offered a seat to the North Slave Metis Alliance at the Tlicho land claims and self-government negotiating table.
Unfortunately, however, the three principal parties to the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement had to withdraw their offer to include the North Slave Metis Alliance as a party to the Tlicho land claim agreement because Clem Paul, who was the first elected president of the North Slave Metis Alliance, derailed the North Slave Metis Alliance land claims and self-government initiatives when he and his supporters undertook unlawful actions to transform the North Slave Metis Alliance organization into a tyranny. The primary unlawful actions of Clem Paul and his supporters were as follows: He refused to step down as president of the North Slave Metis Alliance after his two- year presidency term of office had expired; he oversaw the unlawful revocation of over 100 North Slave Metis Alliance members; he spearheaded several unlawful amendments to the North Slave Metis Alliance's constitution and by-laws; finally, and regrettably, he oversaw the prosecution of an illegitimate injunction application in the Federal Court of Canada against the three principal parties to the Tlicho land claims agreement — the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Dogrib Treaty 11 Tribal Council.
Needless to say, the most serious and damaging result of Clem Paul's unlawful and illegitimate actions was the removal of the offer by the three principal parties negotiating the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement to join them at the negotiating table.
With that in mind, I would like to take this opportunity today to categorically state that as one of the founders of the North Slave Metis Alliance, and in my capacity as current president, I cannot fault the three principal parties that negotiated the Tlicho land claims agreement for removing their offer to include the North Slave Metis Alliance at the negotiating table.
The simple fact of the matter is that once over 100 North Slave Metis Alliance members unlawfully lost their membership, the North Slave Metis Alliance also lost its political mandate to represent the collective Aboriginal rights of the North Slave Metis land claim beneficiaries.
As a point of interest, Clem Paul's Federal Court of Canada injunction application against the Tlicho land claims agreement was dismissed. Unfortunately, however, North Douglas, Clem Paul's successor, saw fit to file another Federal Court of Canada lawsuit against the Government of Canada, the Government of Northwest Territories and the Dogrib Treaty 11 Tribal Council. The lawsuit's primary purpose was to compel the main parties to negotiate a land claims and self-government agreement with the North Slave Metis Alliance.
I wish to inform this committee that the current North Slave Metis Alliance board of directors terminated that lawsuit; and this duly elected board of directors of the North Slave Metis Alliance understands there is no reason to be in court against any of the principal parties to the Tlicho land claims agreement. The reason the North Slave Metis Alliance was not party to the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement rests on the shoulders of Clem Paul and his supporters.
I am pleased to report that the North Slave Metis Alliance's political mandate to assert its members' collective Aboriginal rights has been restored. That is because Sholto Douglas, the former president and also the first vice- president of the North Slave Metis Alliance and I successfully won a six-year-long class action lawsuit against Clem Paul and his supporters in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories ordered the following: Reinstatement of the memberships of all of the members whose memberships had unlawfully been revoked; reinstatement of the North Slave Metis Alliance's original constitution and bylaws; and an election under the auspices of the original North Slave Metis Alliance constitution and bylaws. Needless to say, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories' order was carried out, since I am here today representing the interests of the North Slave Metis Alliance members.
In summation, the actions of a few of the North Slave Metis Alliance's members have prevented the North Slave Metis Alliance from making any progress on its land claims and self-government initiatives. The record indicates that it was not because the three parties to the Tlicho land claims agreement were unwilling to include the North Slave Metis Alliance at the negotiation table; rather, that they could not do so as a consequence of Clem Paul's unlawful and illegitimate actions. Now that the unlawful and illegitimate agencies of Clem Paul and his supporters have been rectified, the North Slave Metis Alliance members want their collective Aboriginal rights addressed.
The Aboriginal rights of the North Slave Metis Alliance beneficiaries can be addressed through a number of different approaches. Two approaches that should do the job are as follows: First, amend the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement to allow for a Metis specific adhesion to it. This is not a new concept. The Fort Liard First Nations signed Treaty 11 a year after the other First Nations signed the treaty. This approach may require the support of both Houses of Parliament. which means that I may be back before this committee in the future, seeking its support.
Second, the federal government could undertake a Metis-only treaty negotiation with the North Slave Metis Alliance. This approach provides the Government of Canada with the means to negotiate a land claims and self- government agreement with the North Slave Metis Alliance without having to amend the Tlicho land claims and self- government agreement to do so.
Finally, on behalf of the North Slave Metis Alliance, I would like to conclude my presentation by congratulating the three parties to the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement. They have worked hard over the past 10 years to bring this agreement to a successful conclusion.
I wish to reiterate my appreciation to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for inviting me here to voice the North Slave Metis Alliance's views and concerns. I would also like to point out that I appreciate the goodwill of the Tlicho land claims people, the Dogrib people as a nation. I would like to see them move ahead. As president of the North Slave Metis Alliance, I cannot do anything to change the past, but I certainly can change the present and the future. With that, I apologize to the Tlicho land claims people for what happened to them under the former regimes of the North Slave Metis Alliance.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Enge. Are there any questions, Senator St. Germain?
Senator St. Germain: Thank you, Mr. Enge, for your presentation. I would like to ask you a couple of questions. Obviously, from your presentation, you had a serious challenge to deal with in regard to the past executive of your organization. I understand from being around this situation that there are approximately 350 Metis in the Tlicho territory, is that correct?
Mr. Enge: That is not quite correct. The North Slave Metis coexist and share the North Slave region with the Dogrib people. We have done so for hundreds of years. The Tlicho land claims agreement allows for the Dogrib people to govern themselves under the auspices of certain land selections, namely, that they have selected lands in and around the four communities where the Dogrib people reside.
The majority of the North Slave Metis reside in Yellowknife. That is not in the selected land claims areas of the Tlicho or the Dogrib people. However, a few Metis reside in some of the territory that the Dogribs have claimed, namely, a small community call Edzo. Edzo is about seven miles from Fort Rae, and that is primarily where the Metis of the Tlicho-selected land claims reside. It is my understanding that there are about 30 North Slave Metis Alliance members residing in that community.
Senator St. Germain: I have quite an interest in this matter by virtue of the fact that my ancestry is Metis. I listened carefully to what Chief Erasmus said. Basically, you live in a cohesive society where those wanting to speak of their ancestry and to bring forward their ancestry can become part and parcel of the Dene nation, which is split into five regions. Theoretically, if you are Metis and a descendent, and you are prepared to go forward as a descendent, you are part of it.
We now have, post the Powley case, a Metis people who will possibly view their position differently. They might to try to assert their claim more forcefully. It is happening already. I am getting many calls in British Columbia. I am originally from Manitoba. In British Columbia, however, the Metis are meeting and trying to establish what rights they have and how they can be identified as bona fide Metis people.
If we ratify this agreement, what request might we expect from Metis people in the region? Do you feel that they will go along with what you have proposed here tonight? If they do seek agreements and Metis settlements — that is, under section 35 — would the Tlicho agreement be reopened and that adhesion made to the agreement? You said that the federal government could enter into a separate agreement. Are there Metis people there whom you do not represent who could have a different point of view? If so, how many are there? Could we have a situation of having to deal with something else down the road? I am not saying this should obstruct the Tlicho from what they are doing.
What I like about this agreement is that it can be amended. I think it was Richard Salter, the legal counsel, who pointed this out to me in a meeting the other morning in my office. I am concerned as to what could come at us in the form of Metis people trying to assert their rights in that area.
Mr. Enge: Thank you for the question. I wanted to tell you that I am descended also from a St. Germain family name.
Senator St. Germain: I could see that in your good looks and your brilliance.
Mr. Enge: There are many Metis with blue eyes, too. With all due respect to former Dene nation Chief Bill Erasmus's view, that the Metis are somehow integrated and dovetailed in with the Dene people, the fact of the matter is that the Metis are section 35 Aboriginal people. We are separate and distinct from our Indian and Inuit counterparts. We are a distinct and separate people, in other words.
If former Chief Bill Erasmus read the Powley case, he would see that the Government of Canada, through the Supreme Court of Canada, recognizes that Metis are separate and distinct. We are a mixed race of people between our Aboriginal counterparts and mostly European settlers who came here. Without getting too much into the history and the anthropology of the matter, the Metis underwent an ethnogenesis on the prairies of this country, where the Metis were born and became a separate and distinct people.
In the Northwest Territories, I can tell you that I come from a long line of Metis who have coexisted with the Dene. I am a direct descendent of a famous Metis person who has been recognized by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board as being a Metis of national historic significance, François Beaulieu II, characterized as Old Man Beaulieu, or Le Patriarch. He coexisted with the Dogribs and the Chipewyans of the North Slave region. He had a trading post in what is now Lac la Martre. He even participated in the unfortunate war between the Dogrib and the Chipewyans. However, he was a peacemaker and brought that to a peaceful conclusion.
The Metis have a long history in the North Slave region. The Metis lived amongst the Dene people in a good and harmonious way. There is no reason today why the Metis cannot do the same.
I am here today to support the Dogrib people's aspirations. I very much wish for this land claims agreement to go through. I am an optimist and I sincerely believe that when the time comes, the Dogrib people and the Treaty 8 Chipewyan people will work in harmony with the Metis to ensure that our Aboriginal rights are addressed. It is unfortunate that when the window of opportunity opened for the Metis with respect to having their rights addressed through the Tlicho land claims agreement, it was foiled by the former leadership of the North Slave Metis Alliance. The goodwill was there. There is no reason why the goodwill will not come back. The Tlicho or the Dogrib people extended out the hand of friendship and appreciation to the Metis back in 1997, and I will do my best to repair the damage done under former regimes, build bridges with our Dogrib friends, and coexist in a peaceful and harmonious way with them and move ahead so that both our groups of people can prosper in what is one of the richest regions in this country.
You probably know that this is the only place in North America where diamonds are being mined. There is a tremendous resource that is leaving that region without the full benefits being derived by the Aboriginal people whose lands are now being mined and developed.
Another aspect that is happening right now is, in a sense, a kind of self-government arrangement; a devolution process is under way that should see resource royalty revenues flowing to Aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories and, in this case, all three of the Aboriginal groups that share the North Slave region should prosper and grow together in a good way. I am optimistic about the future. The hand of friendship was extended to the Metis a number of years ago, and I am optimistic that we can work with them and get back on track.
The Chairman: Any other senators who wish to ask questions?
Senator Gustafson: I was interested in your comments on the diamond mines. I am one of those southerners who do not know anything about your area, and I am learning. Is there oil exploration in that area at all? Have they done any seismic work, or what is the situation?
Mr. Enge: Senator Gustafson, there is no oil exploration going on in the North Slave region, but there is a lot of exploration going on there of the mining sort. The North Slave region is a very rich, non-renewable resource area. Yellowknife was founded as a gold-mining town; there were two gold mines there that have now been shut down because the gold ore has been exhausted. What has replaced gold mining is diamond mining in the region, and our economy is the envy of the country. Two years ago the growth rate in the North Slave region was estimated at 20 per cent, which is a highly unusual economic situation in comparison to Alberta, which we managed to outpace.
Our future in the Northwest Territories looks very bright. There is a prosperous future for all of the citizens of the Northwest Territories, but in the case of the Aboriginal groups that reside in the North Slave region, we stand to do very well in the future, and I know that our lot in this society. and in the country of Canada. Will improve. Already we are seeing tremendous advances.
I applaud the Dogrib people for use of some of the money they received from the diamond companies to educate their young. Last year I understand they placed half a million dollars a year towards the education of their young people, which is a laudable exercise. They are laying the groundwork for an improved society for themselves. I know that I am committed to that. I want to do as much as I can to educate our young in the same way as the Dogribs are seeing fit to do.
Senator Gustafson: Because it seems as though the ice is softening in the North, many scientists are telling us that the ice-breakers will be able to go through the North at all seasons, and possibly replace the Panama Canal and reduce the distances for shipping and trading, and so on. What is your view on that?
Mr. Enge: I really have not thought about it very much. We have tremendous things going on in the Northwest Territories. You have probably heard that, right now, there is a proposal on the table for the construction of the biggest natural gas pipeline in the history of the world. That is consuming a tremendous amount of our time. I do know that the Inuit in the Nunavut Territory are interested in building a nickel mine somewhere near Kugluktuk. I guess that would help them. If the sea lanes are open, it would make it more feasible for some mining to go on and become a tremendous benefit to the Aboriginal people who reside in that area.
Senator Gustafson: It would revolutionize the North.
Mr. Enge: We are undergoing profound changes now. There are many issues we are dealing with because of rapid economic growth. Housing, for example; there are many jobs but no places for people to live. That is an unusual situation, and a good one for us. All of us who reside there have a place to live. There are jobs for our people and prosperity is under way. That will do a great deal to improving the lot of the Aboriginal peoples in the North with respect to economic development. Aboriginal peoples are ready for economic development. They are asking both Houses of Parliament to forge ahead with economic development. There is a proposal on the table with the Aboriginal Pipeline Working Group to see that natural gas pipeline built. Of course, there are a few snags along the way, one of which is the right-of-way through the Deh Cho region. There are some problems with that. However, these kinds of problems will crop up in any big project. I expect the collective will of the people will prevail, and economic development will go ahead.
The Chairman: I will ask you, Mr. Enge, in the Tlicho agreement, in the definition of a Tlicho, there is provision for descendants of the Tlicho to be enrolled and thus be part of the agreement. Are you aware whether there are Metis who fit under this category of descendants who have enrolled as part of the Tlicho people? If so, how many do you think there are relative to the number that you know that have not enrolled in this process?
Mr. Enge: Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting question and one that I wish I could answer for you. The Dogrib Treaty 11 Tribal Council negotiating team has not yet issued its enrolment list publicly. I have requested a copy of the enrolment list but they feel they need to keep it from the public eye until such time that they provide it to their own citizens first, their own people, which I respect. However, I do have an estimate that around the middle of April they plan to release that enrolment list and then I can know definitively which of the North Slave Metis Alliance have decided to join the Tlicho land claims process. I cannot say today, but that certainly is information that will be forthcoming in the near future. I would be interested in seeing their list.
One of the major reasons for the existence of the North Slave Metis Alliance is to assert the Aboriginal rights of its members, particularly in the land claims arena.
The Chairman: I have looked through the agreement to see what there was, whether there were any references to Metis, and in terms of an agreement there is no mention of Metis, only descendants of the Tlicho. I do notice in section 2.25 that it states that enrolment does not affect the identity of Metis. I do not know whether that is, from your standpoint, a good or positive thing, but I take it that it means that they leave it to the Metis to identify themselves. They leave it to the Metis to seek their own definition or their own Aboriginal rights. Further in the agreement it does say that the agreement should not be construed as to recognize any Aboriginal or treaty rights of any other Aboriginal people other than the Tlicho. Thus the Tlicho are saying that this applies only to them. They leave it to some other future process or decision for other Aboriginal groups to make their claims.
Also, in 7.3 it states that the Tlicho government may agree to share rights. Do you get any comfort from any of these provisions as far as your Metis rights go?
Mr. Enge: The short answer is, no. I do not derive any comfort from those provisions that the collective Metis identity of the members of the North Slave Metis Alliance will be preserved. My understanding, and the understanding of my advisers, is that if we were to enrol in the Tlicho land claims agreement, we become Tlicho citizens and therefore lose our Metis identity. The Metis are adamant that we are not about to lose our identity at the altar of this land claim. To have our Aboriginal rights addressed, we request a separate process that can be handled under the auspices of the Tlicho land claims agreement.
I do know that there are provisions in the land claim that allow for descendants of the Dogrib people to include themselves in their claim. In that regard, we do have Metis that fit into that category. In fact, the former president of the North Slave Metis Alliance, North Douglas, fits that category. Some of his family members obtained Indian status under the auspices of Bill C-31, and he himself decided not to. He therefore is without Indian status and therefore a full, bona fide Metis person. Now, he could opt to join the Tlicho land claims process if he wished because he is a descendant of the Dogrib people. However, his mother was disenfranchised as a status Indian when she married his father, who was a Metis from the Sahtu area, and she, his mother, was eligible and decided to opt to obtain her Indian status back. She also is a member of the Dogrib band. A number of his brothers and sisters did the same, but he did not. However, he could join the Tlicho land claim if he wished because he is a descendant of the Dogrib people, and in that respect there is a provision whereby he could apply to a committee struck to look at applications. If the committee, comprised of the Dogrib people, decided that they would permit him to be a Tlicho citizen, he would then be given approval to be a Tlicho citizen, but he would have to apply. There is a process there.
I just want to emphasize the fact that the Metis are very proud of their heritage. They are very proud of their identity, and they are not about to enter into the Tlicho land claims agreement and lose their identity once they do so. We will remain optimistic that we will have our rights addressed down the road. I am sure that that will happen.
The Chairman: One final question, Mr. Enge. I do recognize that you state in your presentation that you have ordered discontinuance of action with respect to an action that you have taken against the federal government. What is the status of that action, and do you plan or hope to begin negotiations with respect to Metis rights with the federal government sometime in the near future to have your rights dealt with?
Mr. Enge: Yes. Under my leadership, and with the goodwill of the current North Slave Metis Alliance board of directors, the lawsuit filed in the Federal Court of Canada against the three principal parties from the Tlicho land claims agreement was dropped on December 3, I believe. There are some bugs being worked out right now with respect to its discontinuance. The discontinuance was filed in the Federal Court of Canada but there are some mechanics with respect to the filing of that discontinuance that are still being worked out. However, as far as the North Slave Metis Alliance is concerned, that lawsuit is over and finished. We formally dropped it and we do not see any need to look back at it any further.
I think it is common knowledge that everyone knows that when an Aboriginal people file a lawsuit against the Crown, what automatically happens is that the Crown stops negotiating. While you are in litigation, there is no negotiation. I find it was quite absurd that that lawsuit was filed in any event, and it was groundless because it was not necessary. Now that the lawsuit is dropped, I am optimistic we can get the federal government back to the table to see what we can work out to get our Aboriginal rights addressed.
The Chairman: Are there any questions that arise out of that or any other questions of our witness?
If not, then I want to thank you, Mr. Enge, for your presentation. I do believe you provided some good information to the committee members here. It will assist us in our deliberations on this bill.
We certainly wish you well in the future.
Mr. Enge: Thank you for inviting me here this evening. I urge you to go ahead and expedite the passage of this bill.
The Chairman: Senators, this concludes the witness testimony that we will hear in our deliberations and examination of Bill C-14. We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Is it agreed, senators?
Senator St. Germain: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if it is the will of the committee, that we proceed with clause- by-clause immediately.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The normal procedure is to postpone consideration of the long title, the preamble and the short title contained in clause 1. Shall the committee proceed in the normal way?
Senator Watt: Could you provide us with the text that you are reading? We do not have it.
The Chairman: Actually, I am proceeding with clause-by-clause, and there are two ways that we can do it. We could deal with clause-by-clause in groups of clauses or, if there is a motion to proceed otherwise, we can adopt all of the clauses as a whole. I was suggesting the two options.
Senator St. Germain: Could we break it down into parts?
The Chairman: Yes. I will begin and ask senators, shall clause 2 carry? Do you want to look at the clauses as we go through them?
Senator Watt: May we have copies of the bill?
The Chairman: We can look at the bill on the table of provisions. This approach of grouping the clauses is outlined in the table of provisions.
Senators, shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 3 and 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 9 to 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 15 to 94 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 95 and 96 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 97 to 106 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 107 to 110 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 111 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Is it agreed, senators, that the bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report the bill without amendment at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: This concludes our business on Bill C-14. For the information of witnesses and the audience, I, as chairman of the committee, will report to the Senate at the next sitting of the Senate, which is tomorrow. We will then be in a position to ask for unanimous consent of the Senate to proceed to third reading of the bill and, eventually, Royal Assent.
However, if any person in the Senate does not give consent, because normally a 24-hour period is required between the time of reporting and third reading, we would have to wait until Tuesday of next week. I want everyone to know that senators have a right to 24 hours to review the bill to ensure that all provisions of the bill are satisfactory to them.
I recognize that our witnesses have travelled very far, and I thank them for coming to our Senate committee to see our democratic process in Canada at work.
Senator St. Germain: We should ensure that every senator has the right to speak on this bill at third reading, not that it is generally done. However, the opportunity exists, and conceivably it could happen that another senator, other than Senator Sibbeston and I, will speak to it.
The Chairman: I will emphasize that at third reading, as Senator St. Germain has stated, any senator can speak to the bill. I intend to speak to it because I am knowledgeable, I am from the North and I have an interest in it. Senator St. Germain, who is the deputy chairman of the committee, will speak to the Tlicho agreement. As well, any other senator may speak to the bill.
With that, I thank you again.
The committee adjourned.