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

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

I'm starting to remember what I didn't like about Parliament.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

I had 18 years of it, by the way.

On time limits...did I do that? I did that. I'm sorry. See what happens? We get here nice and fresh and we get all screwed up.

On point nine, fines and administrative monetary penalties, Bill C-15 proposes that the fine amounts in the MVRMA would be increased to be consistent with other federal regulatory laws. Inspectors would be authorized to issue administrative monetary penalties rather than prosecutions. The SSI supports the establishment of greater penalties and administrative penalties under the MVRMA, but submits that guidelines and regulations must be established to provide some direction to inspectors with respect to the appropriate use of prosecutions or administrative penalties to ensure consistency and transparency to proponents and regulators.

The tenth and final point is on the role of the Sahtu Renewable Resource Councils. The SSI submits that the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board and Renewable Resource Councils must have opportunities to participate in all screenings and reviews of projects proposed in the Sahtu settlement area relating to wildlife and wildlife habitat. This would ensure that there is some level of regional participation in those screenings and reviews, and that regional data and information are considered.

In closing, Mr. Chair, the Sahtu appreciate the opportunity to make this submission to you. The proposed amendments to MVRMA relating to the action plan raise deep concerns for the Sahtu. We have not asked for these amendments and do not support them. These amendments are proposed to address the interests of others, not the Sahtu.

We ask that you give due consideration to this submission. The impacts of Bill C-15 would be profound in the Sahtu settlement area. It will undermine the constitutional commitments made by the Sahtu Dene, Métis, and the Government of Canada to work together and establish a new relationship on the basis of the land claim agreement.

It undermines our commitment to work together to manage and protect the lands and waters of the Sahtu settlement area in the Mackenzie Valley. If the MVRMA cannot protect the lands and waters of the Sahtu settlement area, the Sahtu will be forced to employ other means to protect its interests and maintain the integrity of the land claim agreement, including litigation. While such measures would likely result in protracted timelines and higher costs, the Sahtu may have no other option.

The matters raised in the submission were approved by the SSI board in October 2013 and submitted in writing to federal ministers and officials.

Mahsi cho.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thanks so much, Ms. Blondin-Andrew.

Grand Chief Erasmus, we'll turn to you now.

[Grand Chief Edward Erasmus, Grand Chief, Tlicho Government]

[Witness speaks in the Tlicho language]

I would just like to say that I do have people here with me. If you have any questions, I have legal counsel here to answer any technical questions that may arise. I also have people here in the audience. We brought our elders here, and elders' advisers, and also Tlicho government assembly members. They are all here in the room.

My name is Eddie Erasmus. I am the Grand Chief for the Tlicho Nation. I will be making the Tlicho presentation this morning. I have here with me, as I said earlier, Bertha Rabesca Zoe, our legal counsel. She will answer any technical questions you may have.

I would like to take this opportunity to voice our deep disappointment with the committee in the process here, giving us only an hour to speak to the committee on such an important issue that affects our way of life, our equal say in development of our lands, and a bill that seeks to destroy what we had agreed to in our Tlicho agreement.

It has been nine years since the Tlicho agreement came into force and our governments, lands, and jurisdictions were recognized. We have taken on huge tasks in setting up our institutions, building our laws, responding to the needs of our people, promoting a thriving economy, and building upon our rich cultural traditions. We have come so far in such a short period of time, and all the parties to the agreement should feel a great sense of pride in how much we accomplished when we entered into the Tlicho treaty. This is the foundation for a strong and prosperous relationship for decades to come.

However, there is a serious issue that threatens all this good work, our future, and our way of life. We, the Tlicho people, are tied to our lands. We are active users of our traditional lands. Our lands are central to our everyday way of life. It is for this reason that our elders told us that we have to have an equal say on what kind of development would be allowed on our lands, because only with that equal say could the importance of these lands be taken into account in decisions about large developments.

Tlicho's equal voice in those decisions about the use of land or water was at the heart of a promise enshrined in the Tlicho agreement. It took 13 years of negotiations, negotiations with Canada and the GNWT, to arrive at the compromise that could have true co-management in the Wek'eezhii region, what we call the heart of the territory and the management region that affects our way of life. The parties to the Tlicho agreement set up an independent board that we call the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. The Tlicho government appoints half of the members, and half are appointed by Canada and the GNWT. This way we find a balance between the interests of Canada and the interests of Tlicho in preserving our way of life. We have an equal say about development that could profoundly affect our way of life.

In terms of how it works, the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has been a huge success here in the north. It has approved development. It has done a great job of taking into account the Tlicho way of life. In fact, the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has never turned down development proposals. Better yet, because we are involved in the process as equals, none of the decisions made by the board have ever been legally challenged. The reason for this is that the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board process has a confidence of industry, government, and the Tlicho. Furthermore, the Auditor General of Canada reviewed the board and found that not only was it doing a great job but it was significantly more efficient than any other larger boards in the Northwest Territories.

The board works and it works well, but Bill C-15 wants to take all that away. It wants to destroy what took so long to build. It wants to do so with no rational reason whatsoever. Bill C-15 seeks to destroy the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. It wants to terminate it and replace it with a super-board with jurisdiction over the whole Mackenzie Valley where the Tlicho will have only a 0.1 member.

If Bill C-15 becomes law, the Tlicho will no longer have equality as decision-makers because of the use of land and water in Wek'eezhii. In fact, decisions about development in the heart of our territory, Wek'eezhii, will be made with no Tlicho input whatsoever. This is devastating to our ability to protect our way of life. Our voice is being silenced. It is contrary to our agreement and the constitutional promises that we will be joint decision-makers about the use of land and waters in Wek'eezhii. We cannot and will not let this happen.

We cannot let down our elders who told us that protecting our way of life was the most important thing. Why is Canada doing this? Why, when according to the Auditor General the board is working so effectively, is Canada trying to kill the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board? Why, when the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board has worked so well to bring peace to the development approval process, would Canada try to set up a system that will result in development approval delays and legal challenges? They will strangle development and hurt the economy of the north. The Tlicho have always been open to development. The largest diamond mine industry in Canada has played out in Wek'eezhii. It has been a huge economic and regulatory process. It's a huge success. It has been at the heart of the economic engine in the Northwest Territories, so it cannot be that economic development demands removing the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board.

Is it because of devolution? We supported devolution. Nothing in the devolution deal requires that the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board be terminated. Devolution would be more successful with the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board and the system we have put in place.

Simply put, there is no good reason for killing the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board.

There are profound problems with this super-board. Canada is taking the northern regulatory process from one where aboriginal people had confidence in a proven reliable and efficient set of regional boards, and it's imposing another board in which we do not have confidence, which has zero experience dealing on a territorial basis with all the matters that would be before it.

Canada better prepare industry for the reality of opposition with the land claims settlement people and the probable systematic delays that this will cause. Every aboriginal government and organization in the Northwest Territories has opposed Canada's initiative to revise the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and kill the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board and other regional boards.

Canada has returned to the old colonial way of thinking, that they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. That cannot be the way of the future. That is not the constitutional promise made in the Tlicho agreement. We demand better. We will stand up to this proposed law and challenge it if need be. We need to be equal in decisions about the use of land and water in Wek'eezhii. There is no other way we can ensure that our way of life is protected. To the Tlicho there is nothing more important than this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you so much for your opening statement.

Mr. Alexie, we will now turn to you for your statement.

[Robert Alexie, President, Gwich'in Tribal Council]

Thank you.

I would like to lend support to and reiterate a lot of the points that Ms. Blondin-Andrew and Grand Chief Erasmus have stated. I wish I could put forth my points as passionately as they did.

First of all, I would like to say that I am the president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. I was elected in 2012. I would also like to point out that from 1990 to 1992 I was the chief negotiator for the Gwich'in claim, which resulted in the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, the starting point for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which gave us in the Gwich'in settlement area the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board, the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board, and territorially the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

I served two terms as the vice-president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council in the mid to late 1990s, and played a role in the implementation of the Gwich'in agreement. In the last decade I've been working as the executive director for the Gwich'in Land and Water Board. Therefore, I have a good understanding of not only the Gwich'in agreement but also the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Gwich'in live in a very resource-poor area. We have no development in our area. We have no known resources. We look to the south and we see oil and gas development in the Sahtu. We see diamond mining in the Tlicho. We look to the north and we see the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk highway. We see oil and gas in the Inuvialuit settlement region. If we look to the southwest there's gas development in the Eagle Plains area in the traditional territory of the Vuntut Gwitchin. However, in the Gwich'in settlement area, there is no development, period.

We have 3,400 people. Last year we realized that more than 50% of our people live outside the Gwich'in settlement region. We are tasked with the very big job of providing for our people.

The Gwich'in are in full support of devolution. There was a time prior to this administration when the Gwich'in were in litigation with the government over the devolution, but since then we've come on board with the other parties. We have said in the past that we fully support devolution, but little did we know that the NWT devolution act, which I have said that we do support, contains amendments to amend the MVRMA that the Gwich'in do not support. The amendments to the MVRMA go against the spirit and intent of the Gwich'in agreement.

One of the objectives of the Gwich'in agreement was to give meaningful participation to the Gwich'in in the management of lands and resources, which we believe the Gwich'in Land and Water Board provides. We have two representatives on the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the government has two, and there's a chair. It's been 22 years since we signed the Gwich'in agreement in 1992, and for the most part, it's been a good working relationship with government. The few times that we've had to disagree, it has not been an easy process.

I would like to let the committee know that the Gwich'in Tribal Council will be submitting a report that contains 25 recommendations. One that I think Ms. Blondin-Andrew touched on is a “regional presence”, as we call it. We are looking to keep the Gwich'in Land and Water Board. The other issue we have is about how the chair of the super-board is appointed. It's a decision made arbitrarily by the minister and we are not in favour of that. The other one that Ms. Blondin-Andrew also touched on was the binding policy direction on the land use planning boards. Once again, we are totally against that.

As I mentioned, the Gwich'in Land and Water Board was established in our area in I believe 1996, but it wasn't given effect until December of 1998. The land and water board issues land use permits, water licences, and authorizations in the Gwich'in settlement area. For the last decade or more since it came into effect, the board has worked. We've had no major problems that I can remember with regard to processing any application in the Gwich'in settlement area.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council has always had meaningful participation in the management of their land and resources by nominating their people to the Gwich'in Land and Water Board. As Grand Chief Erasmus said, like their people, our people have very close ties to the land. We've had discussions on this issue for many months and we are not in support of any amendments to the MVRMA, but like I said, we are put in a very tough position because we are in support of devolution.

The Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement was supposed to make our lives easier by providing clarity in our participation in our lands, waters, and resources. Too many times, the Gwich'in Tribal Council has been caught up in a state of conflict with other signatories to the Gwich'in agreement. This is one of them.

As you know, in the last couple of days and weeks we've had another very serious issue that we are dealing with. That's the protection of the Peel watershed and the support that we, the Gwich'in of the NWT, have for the Peel commission's final recommended plan. That's another area that we have to deal with.

Another issue is the ongoing concern we have regarding the implementation of our agreement. It seems to be a long, drawn-out process.

I don't have too much more to say. I think the main issue is that we support devolution. We are not in support of any amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. As I said, it puts us in a very tough position because the two are included in Bill C-15. As the premier said earlier, the changes will give more authority to the people in the NWT in due course, due course meaning five years. We have to take a good look at that, because while the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Gwich'in can probably wait and see what happens after five years, the bigger issue is the amendments to the MVRMA. To those we have to voice our opposition.

I would like to thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much for your opening statements, all of you.

We will begin the rounds of questions with Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the aboriginal governments that have made their presentations here today. Your presentations are very clear and unequivocal on the amendments to the MVRMA that are included in the act.

It's been a process of some dispute, and over time this bill has now ended up in front of us in this omnibus fashion. I want to explore that with you a little bit because that sets the stage for what has happened with consultation.

Could you give us a picture of how these changes were presented to you during any consultation that took place with the federal government on the legislation? Were they presented as a single bill? Were they presented in separate sections? I would like to get that on the record.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe, Legal Counsel, Tlicho Government]

Thank you.

I'm Bertha Rabesca Zoe.

Canada, because of devolution, is making certain amendments to federal legislation, and GNWT is developing and drafting mirror legislation so that devolution can happen.

We're quite involved in that work, those of us who are parties and technical people and persons and legal counsels from the various groups involved in that process. All the various drafts of the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, and the Northwest Territories Act were shared with us. But in all of our work with Canada and GNWT—mostly with Canada—we have always maintained, as aboriginal parties and aboriginal groups and governments in the Northwest Territories, that MVRMA is a totally different process, because we've been very concerned about the proposed amendments and particularly the restructuring of the board.

We didn't see the bundling of the bills until it was introduced in Parliament. I've been involved in the work on both devolution and the MVRMA, so I have first-hand information and knowledge about that process. As a matter of fact the October session we attended—and we put this on record—wasn't a consultation session as far as we are concerned because the key and fundamental principles of working together in a collaborative manner in that process were totally ignored. That's the process we wanted to embark on. In that October session I asked the federal officials who were there doing the presentation whether those bills would be bundled as an omnibus bill, and we were never given a response as to what they would do. So we didn't know they would be bundled until they were introduced into Parliament as Bill C-15.

Mahsi.

[Daryn Leas, Legal Counsel, Sahtu Secretariat Inc.]

I just want to make one further comment to Bertha's. I really want to emphasize that the devolution negotiations, discussions, and the action plan related to streamlining, or whatever the phrase is, for the federal government on environmental legislation were separate but concurrent processes. Never once were the federal devolution negotiators able to provide any substance or details about the Mackenzie Valley legislation in the proposed amendments. So they were very distinct, and they made it very clear that it wasn't part of their mandate and they had no authority to speak to those matters.

Separate from that we had some discussions last winter with federal officials who spoke about process but not details, certainly nothing about the reconstituted board or things of that sort. So it's a surprise to us that now these separate but concurrent processes are bundled into one bill, Bill C-15, when they haven't been treated like that for the previous four or five years.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It's interesting because the premier just indicated in his testimony previous to this that the Government of the Northwest Territories was told in the fall that these bills would be put together. So obviously the Government of the Northwest Territories did not share that information with you, though you're partners in devolution.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

No, they did not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Dennis. Thank you, witnesses.

We'll turn now to Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming. I've never been anywhere close to the north before so I am happy to be here.

I am pleased to hear that everyone is in favour of devolution. I know that when we heard from the premier he used some phrases such as, it's a “game-changer for northerners”, “usher in a new era of prosperity”, and “necessary tools” to develop resources and grow the economy.

I take it all of you would, in general, agree with those comments by the premier with respect to devolution.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

What you have up here are three aboriginal groups with land claims that have signed on as parties to the devolution agreement. We don't have any issues with that. As we said earlier, very clearly, we have issues with the MVRMA and the killing off of our regional boards.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

I appreciate your comments. Welcome to the north. I'm glad you came up. Every member of Parliament should enjoy this part of the country.

I would answer your question but it's really not relevant to me being here today. I'm here to talk about Bill C-15 not devolution.

Thank you.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

So what I've heard, and I think it's clear, is that everyone here in this group of witnesses is opposed to the consolidation of the boards. I take it that's pretty clear and unequivocal. I've heard that message. What I do note is that, when I look through the comprehensive land claims agreements, setting up a single board is certainly contemplated within the legislation with respect to all of those agreements. In the Gwich'in agreement it's in section 24.4.6. With respect to the Sahtu, it is in section 25.4.6. I believe with respect to the Tlicho, it is section 22.4. These things were certainly contemplated in setting up a single board.

I guess my question really would be, if it was contemplated that this would take place.... There's a phrase I used to use when I practised law. We talked about “the devil is in the details”. Are you altogether opposed with respect to the consolidation of these boards, meaning it's a non-starter and there is no chance you would ever agree to it, or is the devil in the details? Is this an issue of not enough representation on the board and you wish you had more members on the board?

What would be your answer to those two questions?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

I wouldn't mind just reiterating our position. It's a very simple one. As a lawyer I'm sure you will appreciate it, because simplicity is the goal of every lawyer, right?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'm not sure a lot of lawyers would agree with that, but that's okay.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

Well, you try to simplify really complicated cases and deal with people's issues. I hope that's what you do.

At any rate, the main point here is that the system we have honed, and developed, and worked on, and co-managed, and partnered to achieve is working. It's working. It's effective. It's good. We support it.

Why change it if it's not broken?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I hear that, and I heard that quite clearly. What I'm trying to ask is whether the opposition is absolute, meaning under no circumstances do you want this board even though it's contemplated within your agreements. Or do you want the composition of the board that's being proposed somehow changed? I'm trying to simplify it into those two issues.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

For Sahtu, we oppose it as it is, as the government is engineering it. Nowhere does it say in our land claims that we should have it shoved down our throats as it is, and dictated to us. It is a co-management partnership where we work on something and we build it together.

I think Ms. Rabesca Zoe presented something that we've worked on in this process in the last six years, and that's the framework agreement. We've tried everything to make it work.

Maybe you guys can answer our question. Why are you not willing to consider reasonable changes and reasonable amendments? Why is it you guys are not able to do that? Why will you not co-manage and co-partner with us rather than just dictate to us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I think Ms. Rabesca Zoe had a comment earlier. I just want to make sure we recognize that before the time is finished.