Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Jan. 27th, 2014

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Maybe Mr. Innes could address it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Innes, we'll turn to you.

[Larry Innes]

It looks as though I'm the efficient one.

Thanks for your question, Ms. Jones.

Perhaps the best way to answer this is to say that the Dene have been at the table for decades. Several of the regions have settled their agreements. However, as I'm sure was pointed out in detail this morning, the settlement of those agreements contemplated regional structures in which the people of a particular region could bring matters concerning their lands and resources to a body that they themselves were adequately represented on. That body could then give proper consideration to the issues before that region.

That opportunity is being denied to the unsettled regions, to the Dehcho and to the Akaitcho, by the changes that are being put forward in this bill. The super-board, the revamped MVRMA structure, is not a regional structure. It does not provide voice for the people of those regions. It in fact makes them just one of 11 members on a body that is ultimately under the control of the federal minister.

That is not devolution. That is a continuation of federal control and the dictating of northern policy to northerners from Ottawa, which is not what this bill intended or what this bill, being called the Northwest Territories devolution act, should actually achieve. We're seeing yet again a purpose disguised in the title of a bill, which claims to be providing for the devolution of control to northerners when in fact it does the opposite.

You talked a little bit about what this would mean in terms of the settlement for those first nations who are not yet parties to a final agreement. For the Dehcho—and I'm here representing the Dehcho—I can only say it will increase the time that it takes to reach a resolution of their agreement, and it will increase the time that it will take to bring the benefits of resource development, proper planning, proper land use management, conservation, and other things to that region, which has been waiting for a very long time, as the grand chief pointed out earlier.

These issues have been before Canada for decades. They are not being resolved through this legislation. The only proper thing that this committee should recommend is that the two issues of territorial devolution and the revamping of the regulatory structures of the Northwest Territories be separated and considered on their separate merits.

Canada should not be dictating to the regions through legislation the structures for co-management that it wants. It should be at a table negotiating these matters in good faith, and that is not what we're seeing in this legislation today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Now we are absolutely over time, but I do want to thank you for your patience and your willingness to stay with us during our extended period of time with you. Thank you for taking the time away from your communities as well. I know you're all very busy people.

Gentlemen, thanks again.

We'll now suspend. I should just note that we have representatives from the Katlodeeche First Nation, as well as the North Slave Métis Alliance, the Acho Dene Koe First Nation, and the Fort Liard Métis Local 67, who will be on our next panel.

We'll suspend for just a few minutes and set up for the next panel.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I will call the meeting back to order.

For our next panel, we have the privilege of having representation from the Katlodeeche First Nation. We have Chief Fabian with us. Thanks so much for coming.

Joining him we have Peter Redvers. Thank you so much for being here.

We also have with us Bill Enge from the North Slave Métis Alliance. Thank you so much for being here.

[Bill Enge, President, North Slave Métis Alliance]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We also have with us Christopher Devlin, who is joining you. Thank you so much for being here.

From the Acho Dene Koe First Nation, we're going to have Chief Deneron. I'm not certain if he's in the room, but we hope he'll join us shortly. From Fort Liard Métis Local 67, we're hoping to have President McLeod with us. If those two gentlemen are in the room, we'd love to have them join us at the front of the room. We will proceed and hope they join us.

To begin, we'll turn to Chief Fabian for his opening statement. Then we'll go down the line.

Chief Fabian.

[Chief Roy Fabian, Chief, Katlodeeche First Nation]

[Witness speaks in the Dehcho Dene language]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak here today.

As the chief of Katlodeeche First Nation, I would like to talk about several things. Eventually, I'd like to allow my technician to say a few things about some other things that I can't deal with.

My great-grandfather signed the Katlodeeche First Nation treaty in 1900. I want to talk a little bit about under what conditions he signed that treaty. I think it's important, because a lot of times we miss that point. What gave him the right to sign that treaty? I want to talk about that a little bit.

As for the people, we have been living on this land from time immemorial. We developed our integrity based on the integrity of the land. We developed our culture, our language and our capacity. Through those things, we thrived on Denendeh. Our people were thriving. When Canada came to us hat in hand and asked us to share the land with them, our forefathers did that. My great-grandfather shared the land with Canada and the crown, but he did it with the crown. Canada's people are subjects of the crown. You need to remember what the relationship is here. As subjects of the crown, you should make sure that you get direction from the Queen before you come and talk to us. That is something that is really important which I needed to say.

As a Dene people we had our own government based on our integrity, culture, language and capacity. We had a full-blown government just like yours. In fact, it was such an intricate form of government that we thrived on this land. Today, after over 114 years of treaty relationships, I don't sit here like my great-grandfather. Therefore, my people, the Katlodeeche First Nation people, told me that we are not to negotiate another treaty, that we are to stick to Treaty 8, because we cannot negotiate a better treaty than the one that our forefathers made when they were thriving on this land and had full capacity to be able to thrive on this land. Today we don't have that, so don't even think about trying to negotiate a new treaty.

What the Katlodeeche First Nation wants to talk about is treaty implementation. We're not going to sign any kind of a land claim. I don't think I can do a better job of negotiating a better treaty than my forefather did. I always need to remember that.

As previous speakers said here, we as Katlodeeche First Nation do not cede, release or surrender our land. We still have full authority over our traditional territory.

As they said before, when the Paulette case took place, Judge Morrow confirmed that the Dene version of the treaty is the correct version, and that the English version does not apply. It was a year after that, that we, the Katlodeeche First Nation, took a reserve. When they were negotiating that reserve, the elders at that time made sure that they did not cede, release, or surrender. Canada told us, told our chiefs, “If you settle this reserve, you will also have the opportunity to settle the land claims later on.” It's based on us taking a reserve. Therefore, we believe we still have full treaty and aboriginal rights on our traditional land. We did not cede, release, or surrender.

That means that there are four things that we have. First, we have the right to harvest, hunt, trap, and fish on our land. Second, we have the right to manage our resources. Third, we have title to our land. Fourth, we have self-government and we govern our land.

The unfortunate situation we are in is that we have an administration governing us. As Bill Erasmus pointed out, the Government of the Northwest Territories is an administrator of Indian Affairs, yet somehow you're going to devolve all this power to them. In order for you to do that, for us we still have control of our lands and resources. We have a right, an aboriginal and treaty right, to our lands and resources. You can't devolve it to the Government of the Northwest Territories without our consent. That means that you're going to have to accommodate me. Somehow you're going to have to make it right so that I can have a say on my land.

Right now I don't have a say on my land. For example, the Government of the Northwest Territories is passing legislation on my land that I believe is illegal. Things like the Wildlife Act, the Forest Management Act, and all these other acts that the Government of the Northwest Territories passes, are not supposed to apply to my land. The Katlodeeche traditional land is not ceded territory, so you can't do that.

We reluctantly participate in a lot of things your government applies to us. The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is one of them. We did not get consulted when you devised that thing, but we participated in it. As we participated in it, we began to see that it was something that worked for us to be able to protect the environment. That's the most important thing that we do as first nations, protect the land, because without the land we're nothing.

And you, as Canadians, are nothing without the land. You know that, and that's why you are fighting so hard with us to try to gain control of it. But you're not worried about the environment. You're worried about trying to exploit the resources and to kill the land. That's not where we want to go. As a first nation, we want to protect Mother Earth, so we will not support this resource management act revision. We have treaty and aboriginal rights that my technician is going to talk to, that are going to be important to us. We've given you our submission. You know what our issues are.

We can't sit by and allow this thing to take place. We don't necessarily agree with devolution, but we have no choice but to participate. At the same time if you're going to give the resources to the Government of the Northwest Territories, make sure that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is in place to make sure they're going to protect the land the way you did. You're the ones who devised that document and now you want to change it. Why? Because you want to exploit the resources.

There's talk that this is a sustainable process. It isn't a sustainable process. What you guys are talking about is that you're just going to blow it wide open. What's going on in Alberta is going to go on here. That's something I could never agree to. The thing about it is that the resources are limited. If we exploit it all at once in the next 50 years, what are the future generations going to have? They're going to have nothing. They're going to look back and wonder what the hell those guys did. Your children are going to be in the same place, not just mine. Your future children are going to look back and say what did those guys do? Now we have nothing to live with here. That's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about anything else. As a Dene person, I need to look forward. I need to look into the future to my grandchildren and ask what I am going to do for them, not what I am going to do for myself.

This is the question all of you need to ask yourselves: what are you willing to do for your children? You guys hear all the horror stories that are going around as a result of all this development that's taken place—global warming and all that. We're ignoring it. We can't. We mustn't if we want to create a future for our future generations.

I hope you think twice about what you're doing with that resource management act. What you're going to do is destroy the land. That's what we're talking about.

With that, I'll let my friend Peter Redvers talk to a few of those issues.

Mahsi cho.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you again.

We've run out of time, but if you have a few comments with regard to the technical aspects of the bill, we'd happily hear from you.

[Peter Redvers, Consultation Facilitator, Katlodeeche First Nation]

Thank you. A few of the points that were made in the brief just need to be reiterated or emphasized.

First of all, the Katlodeeche First Nation has taken the position that Bill C-15, particularly part 4, the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act—more specifically, the restructuring of the land and water boards—will actually prejudice KFN's ability to negotiate with Canada and the GNWT full implementation of its land and resource management rights within its traditional territory, either on its own or through a regional body set up through the Dehcho First Nations. That opportunity is denied.

KFN would also like to point out that a question has arisen a couple of times this morning about why certain clauses might have been in the land claims agreements, specifically the Gwich'in and Sahtu agreements, if they weren't contemplating the creation of a territorial board and the loss of regional boards.

We would respectfully point out that, in fact, once the two claims, the Sahtu and Gwich'in claims, were settled and the boards were established, there's a section in both of those claims that says when there's a territorial board established, “it shall assume” the authorities of the regional boards. Also, then, sections 24.4.6 and 25.4.6 of those agreements—which is the key section—say, “Legislation may provide for regional panels of the Land and Water Board”, and say that the respective first nations will be consulted.

I think the point we're making is that those sections of the agreement were actually completed and fulfilled in 2000. The regional boards were established. Then, for sections 24.4.6 of the Gwich'in agreement and 25.4.6 of the Sahtu, where the territorial board was established in 2000 under the MVRMA, that was completed. Check that one off.

At the same time, paragraphs 24.4.6(b) and 25.4.6(b) were also implemented, so that the regional boards became “panels” of the land and water board. So in a sense, that section of the agreement was fulfilled. It was completed. It was done by the creation of the territorial board with the regional panels in 2000.

To say that these amendments are implementing the agreement is in fact not true. They are actually overriding sections of the agreement that have fully been implemented as per the agreements and as per the establishment of the MVRMA and the territorial and regional panels in 2000. Changing that again will affect KFN's ability to negotiate its own authorities.

The other point, which I think might be becoming a little obvious here, is that the intent of these changes was to create a more efficient and effective system. Well, with all due respect, you don't do that by pissing people off. I have lived in the north for 38 years, and I can assure you that development, proper and sustainable development, and proper discourse, and respectful discourse occur when parties speak and act respectfully towards each other. When one party imposes their will on another, it creates a situation where there is going to be more confrontation and a more adversarial relationship. So I'm going to predict there will be more challenges to decisions made by the body set up under this amended board, and that's something you need to take into account.

A quick point also in the KFN.... With all due respect to Mr. Pollard, when he met with the first nations—and I was a part of those most recent consultations—he was throwing numbers out about how this board structure would result in up to 50 members of the board. That was completely fallacious.

He knew at the time—or the minister knew at the time—that there were only the five regional boards that were likely to be set up, that the other claimant groups were not in fact requesting, and that in some cases their AIPs did not include the establishment of land and water boards, so that was incorrect. The maximum for board members might be 30. With the reduction in some of the regional board members, that could be anywhere from 20 to 25.

There are some options that were put forward. None of those were considered as to whether or not there was some way to do this that would allow the regional boards, so in that sense the consultation process failed because it did not make an attempt to accommodate.

Third is time limits. Along with no regional boards, the imposition of time limits, particularly ministerial-controlled time limits, will affect the procedural aspects of consultation. One of the things that seems to be overlooked is that the regional boards fulfill a very important role in the procedural aspects of section 35 consultation. There was buy-in through the claims agreements. They were respected and accepted, which meant that the deliberations and processes carried out through those boards could be seen to be fulfilling procedural aspects of consultation.

That opportunity is now lost. I believe it's going to result in more time being spent by the Government of Canada in having to carry out its own consultation processes, because the procedural aspects will not be adequately fulfilled. Again, that's KFN's position in the brief that's been submitted.

There are two points. On ministerial authority, whether it be federal or territorial authority, there is no reason for the increase in that. It will undermine the credibility of the board. It may put the boards in a position of being biased, particularly in the appointment of the chair, and ultimately you'd end up with a system that's micromanaged by politicians rather than being managed under legislation and regulation.

If you are wanting to look for a way to slow down processes or make them less effective, with all due respect to you who are politicians, let's get politicians involved, because as soon as decisions become political rather than technical, governed by legislation and regulation, the world becomes a little more complicated. I think you are going to find ministerial authority is not going to make things more efficient and effective, but in fact micromanagement is going to again undermine those processes.

Getting down to real specifics, there are two specific amendments that could be made to those sections and aspects of the bill, the MVRMA amendments, that are reasonable.

In terms of that ministerial authority, particularly with the environmental reviews on page 4 of the brief, the following could be added: “If the review board deems a development to be particularly complex due to its scope, technological or infrastructure requirements, location within or near an ecosystem recognized or designated as requiring special protection, and/or potential for high impacts on treaty or aboriginal rights, the board may set or adjust time limits at its own discretion, as long as all affected parties are notified in advance of these decisions.” The boards need to be given the flexibility they need in order to accommodate the complex geocultural and geopolitical nature of the NWT. That would be proposed subsection 128(2.5).

Another proposed amendment would be that proposed subsection 128(2.4) could read, “If the review board requires the person or body that proposes to carry out the development, or a first nation directly affected by the proposed development, to provide information...”. In essence they can call a time out. Basically the legislation allows the board to call a time out when industry requires and needs to gather information. It doesn't give a time out for first nations to gather information, and that would be traditional knowledge information of relevance to deliberations of the board. Traditional knowledge is recognized in the act but there is no mechanism by which first nations can use time within that process to carry out traditional knowledge research to better represent their interests.

Finally, in the latter part of the KFN brief that was presented, pages 6 to 8 point out in detail the formal consultation process that was carried out between June and essentially October and November of this past year. As you can see if you follow through that, and I ask you to review it, there were considerable problems with the formal consultation process. I know the term “consultation” has been applied to the work Mr. Pollard has done. I have not yet seen any documentation tabled by Mr. Pollard in terms of the details of that consultation process, such as who said what where, and how the decisions that he arrived at were reached. KFN would like to point out that in its view the formal process of consultation carried out in the last period of time was utterly inadequate under the law, and you as the committee need to be made aware of that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn now to Chief Deneron. Thank you so much for joining us.

[Chief Harry Deneron, Chief, Acho Dene Koe First Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Harry Deneron, and I represent the Acho Dene Koe First Nation from the southwest of the territory.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it's pretty hard for me to pull up a chair here after the previous presentation, and sitting next to Mr. Fabian over here.

I was born and raised in northeast B.C. Today all the development is happening in the Horn River basin and the Liard basin, and yet the B.C. government doesn't recognize us there. Today they confiscate the wildlife we get, and we're threatened not to set nets in certain lakes. It's very difficult.

I became a chief in 1975. That's a long time ago. At that time we had one voice, one organization, the Dene Nation. We laid claim to the entire north to the ocean. Of course we don't think alike, and we don't speak alike. I think it was in 1990 that a group from a different region walked out, and we were left alone with the Dehcho First Nations.

Five and a half years ago, we asked the government to see if we could do a stand-alone land comprehensive claim. I guess today I can say that in early December last year we signed off on our AIP. It's in the hands of the minister to either sign on or reject it. I'm hoping he will sign on so that we can move forward.

I guess we're here because of devolution, and Bill C-15, and the super-board. I've been through all of these before. Devolution I don't have any problem with. It's nothing new. Where I have a problem with devolution is if we think we're going to create lots of work and be prosperous. I know that to work in northeast B.C., you have to have some skill and be certified with six tickets to work for an oil company.

I think in 1978 it was the last time in the territory, in and around Liard, that we had some training undertaken by “Hire North”, as it was called. They were the ones who built the highway north of the B.C. border. Every one of those people who went through that training, who were in the workforce, and who had skills have either gotten old, or I'm sorry to say, passed away.

Every time you leave human resources development with no training, you're asking for big trouble. I don't see that we're going to greatly benefit from devolution, but I believe it's not too late. I think we can start training, and I think we can undertake those developments that will happen in our region.

The super-board I have no problem with either. We have to say that in the past the Mackenzie Valley water board made recommendations, only to find that enforcing the recommendations were federal Fisheries and Oceans or federal land-use inspectors.

So if we feel that there should be a new way to protect our environment, we must have something with enforceable rules that apply to those recommendations.

I work in northeast B.C. where there is a board or commission called the BC Oil and Gas Commission. They send you a notification telling you that certain companies have made an application to work in your area, and you have 30 days to respond or no response is required. That's it. I don't have a problem with that.

They also have very strong enforcement people if someone breaks the environmental rules and regulations. I believe that it's about $10,000 a day. We don't have that in the territory. I've never seen it. So if there is a change, I don't have any problem with it if we do it right. I know some people are very protective of the treaty that happened for us in 1921 or so. Today we find that the only thing our kids do is play games and none of them are out in the bush. I believe there are only two people who trap in our area today. We have 776 members, so we do have a problem there too.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Now we go to President Enge.

Thank you so much for being here. We'll turn it over to you for your opening statement.

[Bill Enge]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, panel members.

My name is Bill Enge, and I am the president of the North Slave Métis Alliance. I have been president since 2004. With me is my legal counsel, Christopher Devlin, who is assisting me with any questions you may have respecting my presentation.

To begin, I thank the committee for the opportunity to provide the views of the North Slave Métis Alliance, or the NSMA, on the Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement and amendments to other acts in the Northwest Territories.

Since the devolution agreement forms the framework upon which all the amendments included in Bill C-15 are built, the North Slave Métis Alliance's presentation focuses on that key document.

The North Slave Métis Alliance represents a contemporary section 35.1 aboriginal rights-bearing Métis community within the Great Slave Lake area of the Northwest Territories. In June 2013 the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories declared that NSMA and its members have a good prima facie claim as a Métis community that holds aboriginal rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in the area north and east of Great Slave Lake, Northwest Territories.

Because the North Slave Métis Alliance and its members hold these section 35 aboriginal rights in the region to the north and east of Great Slave Lake, we cannot support the devolution agreement in its current form. This is because the devolution agreement in its current form runs roughshod over our members' aboriginal rights.

Today I'll give you a brief overview of our community and then describe some of the questionable actions the crown has taken in the devolution process respecting the North Slave Métis Alliance and its members' section 35 aboriginal rights.

In June 2013 the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories handed down a decision about our community. The court accepted thousands of pages of historical research and sworn affidavits that revealed that an historical community of Métis people had its ethnogenesis in the Great Slave Lake area in the early 18th century. That Métis community was regionally based rather than based in any one particular fort, village, or town, and was ethnically distinct from the Dene and European people who also used and occupied the Great Slave Lake area.

The Métis community of the Great Slave Lake area has continued from historical to present time. The Métis community continues to exercise its collectively held, unextinguished aboriginal rights as Métis people to the north, south, east, and west of Great Slave Lake.

All of this historical research is consistent with the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Powley, respecting the identification of Métis communities that hold aboriginal rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Currently the contemporary Métis community of the Great Slave Lake area is subdivided into different constituencies, each represented by incorporated societies. The North Slave Métis Alliance was incorporated in 1996 by the contemporary constituency that uses and occupies the traditional Métis lands north and east of Great Slave Lake. In 1997 three other constituencies to the south of Great Slave Lake incorporated an umbrella group, the South Slave Métis Tribal Council, now known as the Northwest Territory Métis Nation.

The Northwest Territory Métis Nation was created by Métis constituencies in Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, and Hay River to promote the unity and aspirations of the Métis of the South Slave region. The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories noted the distinct and different goals of the North Slave Métis Alliance and those of the Northwest Territory Métis Nation.

The record shows that the North Slave Métis Alliance and the Northwest Territory Métis Nation have both been representing their constituents for all intents and purposes for the same number of years.

This leads me directly to one of the questionable actions the crown has taken in the devolution process respecting the North Slave Métis Alliance and its members' section 35 aboriginal rights. Why was the North Slave Métis Alliance a part of the devolution discussions when they began, in 2001, but not now, in 2014?

The North Slave Métis Alliance was a party to the devolution discussions in 2001, when they began. The North Slave Métis Alliance was a founding member of the aboriginal summit, a group created as a vehicle for aboriginal government leaders in the Northwest Territories to work together on the devolution process.

Devolution negotiations stalled in 2005. When they started up again, the North Slave Métis Alliance was not invited back to the table.

When the North Slave Métis Alliance was part of the devolution negotiations, the definition for who could be a member included aboriginal groups, in a process to obtain recognition of their rights. When the North Slave Métis Alliance requested inclusion in the reinvigorated devolution negotiations, Canada told the North Slave Métis Alliance that the North Slave Métis Alliance cannot be included because the North Slave Métis Alliance does not meet the new definition for who can be a member. The new definition provides that an aboriginal group can only be a member if the crown chooses to engage in a formal process with the crown for the negotiation of a land claim agreement with that aboriginal group.

The NSMA asked to engage with Canada. Instead of engaging, Canada has stonewalled engagement with the North Slave Métis Alliance by repeatedly asking the North Slave Métis Alliance for more information about its organization and members.

The North Slave Métis Alliance provided Canada with the information it requested. In June 2013 the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories ruled in favour of the North Slave Métis Alliance on exactly the same information that the North Slave Métis Alliance provided to Canada. With that in mind, if the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories has found that the North Slave Métis Alliance has a good case for aboriginal rights, why then does the crown continue to refuse to recognize that the North Slave Métis Alliance is an aboriginal rights-bearing group and to facilitate its inclusion in the devolution agreement?

Why is Canada privileging the Northwest Territory Métis Nation over the North Slave Métis Alliance? The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada wrote the North Slave Métis Alliance a letter in August 2013, acknowledging that the North Slave Métis Alliance members have a good claim to Métis hunting rights north of Great Slave Lake. Regardless, Canada has told us that the North Slave Métis Alliance has to go somewhere else and be someone else if we want to participate in devolution.

Canada's position is that all self-government and land claim negotiations in the Northwest Territories are derived from Dene ancestry. Canada refuses to negotiate land claims and self-government on the basis of Métis ethnicity. Consequently, Canada is negotiating with the Northwest Territory Métis Nation and other aboriginal groups purely on a policy basis.

In other words, Canada's policy is to negotiate aboriginal rights and titles in the Northwest Territories based on aboriginal people's Dene ancestry, rather than on the basis of any assessment of their Métis rights. Canada informed the North Slave Métis Alliance that its members would be better off having their rights represented by the Northwest Territory Métis Nation.

The Northwest Territory Métis Nation is poised to sign a land and resources agreement in principle with Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, which will clarify ownership and rights of the Northwest Territory Métis Nation in relation to lands and resources in the South Slave region. But if North Slave Métis Alliance members join the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, they would voluntarily forfeit their Métis rights north of Great Slave Lake, which the court and the minister so recently recognized.

Is this fair? Is this right? Is this a nation that upholds the rule of law? The law and the minister have recognized our Métis rights, but Canada is telling us to give up those Métis rights to our traditional lands north of Great Slave Lake because of its national policy directive.

This brings me to my final question. Is the North Slave Métis Alliance's exclusion from the devolution agreement just about money?

The devolution agreement and the various intergovernmental agreements flowing from it provide numerous benefits to the aboriginal parties that have been allowed to participate. The benefits range from representation on an intergovernmental council on land and resource management, which provides a forum for the parties to influence land and resource management policy in the Northwest Territories, to the receipt of funding pursuant to a resource revenue-sharing program.

But the North Slave Métis Alliance members are being left out in the cold. The structure of schedule 17 of the devolution agreement, the “Northwest Territories Intergovernmental Resource Revenue Sharing Agreement”, reflects that reality.

The revenue-sharing schedule clearly states that the Northwest Territory Métis Nation includes only three communities: Fort Smith, Hay River, and Fort Resolution, all of which are south of Great Slave Lake. To the north of Great Slave Lake, there are only Indian groups named in the schedule. This means that there is no Métis organization representing Métis rights in the region to the north of Great Slave Lake. So North Slave Métis Alliance members have nowhere to go to have their Métis rights, so recently recognized by the courts and the minister, represented in the devolution process.

The revenue-sharing schedule also provides that the funding transfers to aboriginal groups will be based on membership numbers of each group. The addition of North Slave Métis Alliance members to any of the other aboriginal organizations will mean that these organizations will get more money when devolution is effected. This per capita distribution of the devolution funding is undoubtedly desirable from the point of view of any aboriginal organizations that will get more money if they get our members on their membership lists. It seems to us our members' Métis rights are just a political and financial windfall for the lucky group or groups our members get frogmarched into.

In conclusion, in the Northwest Territories the crown is not honouring Métis rights. The crown refuses to recognized the North Slave Métis Alliance as an aboriginal rights-bearing Métis collective. Canada maintains this position in spite of substantial evidence and a court ruling in the North Slave Métis Alliance's favour. Canada is only negotiating with the Northwest Territory Métis Nation because of policy decisions, which have nothing to do with Métis rights. These policy decisions have driven Canada to tell us that North Slave Métis Alliance members' rights would be better represented by the Northwest Territory Métis Nation. But joining the Northwest Territory Métis Nation would require North Slave Métis Alliance members to voluntarily forfeit their Métis rights north of Great Slave Lake. This is not a legitimate choice for our members. It's not fair. It's not right. Forcing our members to do this is arguably a contravention of the laws of this nation.

To Canada, the North Slave Métis Alliance is an inconvenient truth. Canada wants certainty in the Northwest Territories but is attempting to achieve it at the expense of our members' section 35 constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. The North Slave Métis Alliance cannot and will not stand idly by and let this happen.

This concludes my presentation. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Enge.

Bill, I asked you at the beginning of this time how to pronounce your last name, and then I mispronounced it, so I do apologize.

Folks, we'll turn to the rounds of questioning starting with Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

I have some questions for Katlodeeche. What's your perspective on the clause that creates the territorial board and the loss of the regional boards? How will that affect it going forward?

[Peter Redvers]

Thank you.

I believe in my kind of hurried presentation, given the time, we were trying to point out from KFN's perspective that it appears that those clauses, certainly in the two agreements—the Gwich'in and the Sahtu as we look at them—suggest that what was contemplated in the creation of the territorial board was actually fully enacted in 2000 when the territorial board was established with the regional panels. Therefore, that piece, I guess, of the claims agreement was concluded, so the intent or the move right now to pull back those regional boards is in fact a clear violation of that agreement.

That's obviously for those groups to determine. The only reason we're raising that, or KFN is raising that, is simply that again the removal of the regional boards will prejudice the Katlodeeche First Nation's ability to negotiate its own authorities and responsibilities in terms of land and resource management, either on its own or through the Dehcho region as a part of a regional land and water board or panel.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Enge, you've talked a lot about the devolution agreement. How does your organization look at the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act? Have you an opinion on the impact that will have on your ability to exist in a good fashion in the North Slave, to allow you to have the kinds of inputs that you're looking for on the resource development issues that may come forward, or on your ability to exercise control over land and resources? How do you see it?

[Bill Enge]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington, Dennis if I may, since we have been acquainted with each other for a number of years.

The changes to the act are going to cause to be brought into effect a super-board, as it's being known. This super-board calls for guaranteed representation by three of the settled land claim areas. Then there are government appointments after that to make up the remainder of the board.

The North Slave Métis Alliance does not currently have any representation on any of the boards in the Northwest Territories even though we have pointed that out to the minister a number of times. We will not be provided with a seat at these super-boards so that we can ensure that our rights and interests are voiced and represented. So we cannot support the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board as it does not accommodate the aboriginal rights and interests of the North Slave Métis people.

We are being excluded from the devolution agreement and we are being excluded right now from every single board in the Northwest Territories. We find that patently unfair, unjust, and plain wrong. There have to be some changes made to the act in its form to accommodate the North Slave Métis people to make sure that they too can participate as equal aboriginal peoples in the development of the north.

So not only is the devolution agreement unsupportable by us, but all the rest of the amendments that go along with it cannot be supported because we are being left out in the cold. Our rights are not being respected by these changes to the act. It's time for this government to do something about that.

Thank you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Was there any attempt by Mr. Pollard to engage you at all in any of this?

[Bill Enge]

Indeed I had one of my legal representatives and members of my environment staff participate in the presentation by Mr. Pollard. We have a number of questions that came from that. Again, the kinds of assurances that I've heard back in terms of feedback from my staff do not lead me to have confidence in what is being proposed and contemplated by the changes to this legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We turn now to Mr. Strahl for the next questions.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for sharing your testimony with us here today.

I just want to mention some other testimony that we heard when this bill first came before the committee. It's an ongoing study. The minister was before committee and the question came up about unsettled claims. He said that the conditions of devolution clearly protect the duty, the responsibility, or the possible claims of aboriginal groups in the territory and beyond. There is nothing here that can affect the comprehensive land claims process that is taking place right now. These negotiations will go on.

My question is for Chief Deneron. You mentioned that you have an agreement in principle that you have signed and you are waiting for a response to that. Is there any indication from your first nation that devolution will put the brakes on your ongoing negotiation?

[Chief Harry Deneron]

If we are going to implement our AIP and if there are any changes in any policy, now is the time to accept them and integrate them with our final agreement and accept those changes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

You also mentioned your concern that only a couple of people in your territory are trapping in the bush, as you said. It's certainly not unique to the north. I know that my nine-year-old son also does a lot of the gaming you mentioned.

But for your community, I'd like to know what are some of the economic opportunities that you would like to pursue for your people. Has the current regulatory regime, such as it is, presented any challenges to some of the projects that you may have wished to pursue?