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

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. McCrank.

We'll turn now to Mr. Leef for the next five minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I do take a bit of umbrage with Mr. Bevington's concerns when I raised the questions I raised. I think it's important to focus on best practices across the three territories to see what works. Certainly, that was the nature of my questions, to determine what those best practices are and to see if we can deploy them across the three territories. It may be a bit of a cliché, but as we say, there's no sense in reinventing the wheel. If we find a system that's working, we want to be able to take the good from that system, and we also want to eliminate the things that aren't unique to a particular region or that don't work so well.

I will correct the record for Mr. Bevington. Clearly, while he's talking about 2008-09 and Yukon's mining practices, in 2010, 2011, and 2012, Yukon contributed to 10% of Canada's GDP in exploration alone. We have three operating mines going right now and three more in the permitting phase, so I'm not sure where he's getting his facts about the Yukon territory stalling out in mining.

When we're looking at those best practices, we're looking at what worked in a jurisdiction and what didn't. We have the Yukon example. The Yukon has had devolution for over 10 years now.

Maybe Mr. Pollard can answer these questions, or you, Mr. McCrank, if they're well suited to you.

What experiences from the Yukon were taken into consideration? What were seen as positive measures and mechanisms built into the devolution agreement in Bill C-15, and what was left out because it wasn't working? What did we learn from the Yukon experience, both the good and the bad, that we were able to take or that we were able to leave behind?

[Neil McCrank]

Since I raised the issue after you asked the question, what I looked at in terms of what was going on in the Yukon, which by the way was brought to the table here in the NWT when we had a round table with I believe some people from the Yukon, I think it was just some simplicity to the system that everybody understood. There were some complaints about the environmental board, which was going through a five-year review at the time, but by and large it was the fact that there was a considerable amount of understanding and simplicity to the system that would encourage people to try to use it, and that was not what we were seeing in the Northwest Territories.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Excellent. Thank you.

Mr. Seeback had a couple of questions. I'll pass the rest of my time to him.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. McCrank, there is one thing you talked about in your opening statement that I found interesting and wanted to give you the opportunity to expand on. You said, and if I'm misquoting you, feel free to correct me, that locals say it should be in the land use planning aspect.

Why do you say that, and what do you envision by that? How does that fit into all of this?

[Neil McCrank]

Thank you for that question, sir.

I sat in on some of the regulatory bodies of the land and water boards that were operating within this jurisdiction during the time I was doing my report, and what struck me was that I thought they were dealing with issues that should have been addressed at the land use planning stage. They were talking about whole areas being excluded from development. I think that's a perfectly legitimate concern on the part of the residents of the Northwest Territories whether they be aboriginal or otherwise.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

When you say land use planning, just for edification, you're talking about what use the land can be put to, right?

[Neil McCrank]

Correct. NWT is no different from any other jurisdiction. Alberta is going through land use planning at the moment.

One of my main complaints for the years as the regulatory authority was that the issues we were being asked to deal with were not regulatory issues. They were land use issues.

That's what I mean by local input. It should be very evident and very carefully considered. That's where I think the aboriginal community and other members of the Northwest Territories should have their say about development, at the land use planning stage, not at the stage of the regulatory authority.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Right, for example, this land here shouldn't be a mine; this land here shouldn't be this; this can be, and that should be local. That's what you're talking about.

[Neil McCrank]

If you want to carve out an entire area because it has certain burial grounds associated with it or whatever, it is carved out, and there's no development. No industry is going to want to go there. Once they go to an area where you say development should occur, then there should be a debate about the regulatory issues, not about the land use issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We want to thank our witnesses for being here. We certainly appreciate the wealth of knowledge that you bring to this table and we certainly appreciate your willingness to answer the questions.

Colleagues, we'll now suspend the meeting through the lunch hour. We invite the people from the public who are visiting to come back for 1:30. The hearings will continue at 1:30. The room will be locked for that period of time so we'd ask everyone to vacate the room as soon as possible to assist the staff in making the room secure.

We'll now suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll call this meeting back to order. I want to thank the public for joining us again. We also want to thank our witnesses as well for joining us for this panel.

This is the fourth panel and we have representation from the Northwest Territories Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation. We have with us Chief Sangris. Thank you so much for being here.

From the Dehcho First Nations we have Chief Norwegian. Thank you for being here as well.

From the Dene Nation we have Bill Erasmus. Thanks for joining us as well.

We'll begin with your opening statements and then we'll continue on with rounds of questioning.

I just want to remind our witnesses that taking opening statements beyond the 10 minutes limits the ability for questions to be asked after. We have been giving some variances in time, but I just wanted to remind folks that we're seeking to keep to our 10-minute introductory statements.

We'll begin with Chief Sangris.

Thanks so much for joining us. We'll turn to you for your opening statement.

[Chief Edward Sangris, Chief, NWT Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

I'd like to welcome the standing committee to our traditional territory of Akaitcho. You're in the traditional territory of the Yellowknives Dene, which we, as Yellowknives Dene, call Chief Drygeese territory. It's within the Akaitcho region.

The Akaitcho count has four first nations: the Yellowknives Dene Dettah and N'Dilo, the Deninu K'ue, and the Lutsel K'e.

I'd like to welcome all the elders and all the people and the youth who are here today.

To begin, the Akaitcho have used and occupied our traditional territory, which we call Akaitcho territory, and within that territory, specifically for the Yellowknives Dene what we call Chief Drygeese territory, since time immemorial.

We as Akaitcho entered into the treaty with the crown on July 25, 1900. We, the Akaitcho Dene, still have those existing Akaitcho and treaty rights within our territory. In those days, our people always had treaty rights, right from the first contact. Our people have lived here in our territory and have hunted, fished, trapped, and gathered for the livelihood of their people, as we do today.

The aboriginal treaty rights of Akaitcho Dene do not only exist on paper. We have actively lived this right up to this date. We have provided subsistence for the lives of our people in the treaty. When they made a treaty, our ancestors said, “As long as the sun rises, the river flows, and the grass grows, our people will not be hindered or interfered with to pursue their way of life.” We still follow that protocol today.

On July 25, 2000, one hundred years after the treaty was signed, the Akaitcho entered into a framework agreement with Canada and the GNWT to negotiate lands, resources, and a governance agreement, which we call the Akaitcho framework. In our framework, there are some subjects that are being negotiated, such as: economic development; resource revenue sharing, including royalties; lands and waters; hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering; and renewable and non-renewable resources.

Now I'm going to introduce Don. We will share our presentation.

[Don Balsillie, Chief Negotiator, Akaitcho First Nations, NWT Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation]

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the forum for making themselves available to the Akaitcho people to express at this particular forum some of the concerns that we have relating to Bill C-15.

Before I begin, I did read, as did many others in the north, the papers in which Mr. Bevington stated that a forum of this nature, to a large degree, has limitations regarding what it can actually persuade governments to consider when we hear concerns, suggestions, and recommendations on matters of this nature. To some degree, in the back of my mind, I ask myself whether I should save my breath to cool my porridge here or whether we are just barking into the wind. What sort of opportunity do we as northerners have here to actually see some beneficial changes possibly coming out of what is being discussed here today? It would be very interesting to see how these things move forward.

Nevertheless, it's a good venue at which to have all the stakeholders and the aboriginal governments gather in a room to have a dialogue. With some degree of interest this morning I heard Mr. McCrank speak, as well as Mr. Pollard, with reference to the work that they undertook to help lead us to this point we are at today.

One of the things that were mentioned was the gap that existed and how to bridge this gap. It became very apparent to me that there really is a lack of proper communication among all the parties. Just before I spoke this morning, you heard the chief speaking his language. There's no interpretation available here. From what I understand, in many venues where these matters were talked about, there wasn't proper translation equipment. People missed the point and people were not allowed to speak. With the technology we have available to us, it behooves me to ask why this sort of thing would be allowed to happen. You can see here today that we don't have interpretation equipment available for our elders who are very interested in seeing what is happening. These elders have been around these processes for the last 50 years. This is their homeland. This is where they reside. This is where their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren are going to continue to live. They want to prosper, be involved, and hear what other people have to say so they can in turn articulate in a proper fashion what they believe are the appropriate measures to be taken on behalf of everyone. That is a bit of a concern I want to express here before I get into my point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I do want to remind you that we're under some serious time constraints. There are approximately two minutes left. I'm sure your points would be in excess of that so we'll give you some additional time. We need to be mindful of that.

[Don Balsillie]

Thank you.

Having been a chief before, sometimes I get onto a roll.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I appreciate that.

We're all politicians around this table. We understand that.

[Don Balsillie]

Thank you for that. I would like to begin by saying that the Akaitcho territory, as you're probably aware, is the economic engine of the Northwest Territories. The research we've conducted shows clearly that Canada has benefited greatly from the extraction of natural resources from the Akaitcho territory over the years. We have enclosed a separate report entitled “Economic and Social Development on Akaitcho Dene First Nations’ Land”, dated December 2007.

This report outlines some of the ways that Canada has benefited from resource development in the Akaitcho Territory. The discovery of gold in the Akaitcho territory in the mid 1930s set off the first substantial staking rush. The Con and Giant mines followed. Both mines remained open until 2003 or 2004. They produced a combined total of approximately 12 million ounces of gold. These mines were on our doorstep as you can see, and they have left a legacy of arsenic and other contaminants that we're still dealing with today. Discovery Mine, located 88 kilometres northeast of Yellowknife, produced approximately one million ounces of gold. From 1935 to 2004 its value was approximately $5.9 billion. Around the same time, we had a major lead and zinc deposit being extracted on the south side of Great Slave Lake at the Cominco mines. That was in the sixties, and that produced a substantial financial benefit as well—approximately $2.9 billion. So we've contributed to the well-being of the Northwest Territories substantially from the Akaitcho territory.

More recently, in 1991, diamonds were discovered more than 300 km northeast of Yellowknife, also within the traditional territory of the Akaitcho people. These diamond mines have transformed the region’s economy, bringing unprecedented wealth and prosperity to a large part of the population of the north. Diamonds have become the most valuable of all natural resources ever produced in the NWT. Access to all of the diamond mines is gained by winter roads that run through the traditional territory of the Akaitcho people.

As of 2006, the combination of the Ekati and Diavik diamond mines alone to the NWT's real GDP was approaching 50%. Recently rare earth minerals have been discovered in Akaitcho territory. These minerals are of enormous wealth in the production of various high-technology products. Uranium is also a mineral of which there are huge deposits within the Akaitcho territory.

Over the past 100 years, other important economic activities have taken place within the Akaitcho territory. Numerous smaller mines, mostly gold-producing, have opened and closed. All of these projects represent expansion of the NWT economy through the exploitation of natural resources taken from the Akaitcho territory. The majority of economic activities upon which the NWT was founded involve natural resource extraction from the Akaitcho traditional lands.

There is no denying that staggering wealth has been generated from the natural resources found in the Akaitcho territory. However, this wealth has not resulted in a similar rise in wealth for the Akaitcho first nations. The Akaitcho have never been paid rent or any other compensation for the use of their land at the Con, Giant, or Pine Point mines. The Akaitcho have never received any direct compensation for the more than 15 billion dollars' worth of minerals removed from our traditional territory. Despite the fact that aboriginal title is still an unresolved issue, as a result Akaitcho have opened their land for development for generations, but Akaitcho have had no better socio-economic outcome than have other first nations with no economic assets to speak of.

Canada has benefited greatly from resource extraction within the Akaitcho territory. However, Canada, not Akaitcho, has benefited from that resource extraction. The primary outcome of the extraction from Akaitcho has been increasing impacts upon the exercise of our aboriginal and treaty rights within this particular territory.

Chief.

[Chief Edward Sangris]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Technically you have none, but we want to hear from you. That's what we're here for. So if you have specific concerns about the legislation, we'd be very interested.

[Chief Edward Sangris]

Thank you.

As you know, they knew our position from Akaitcho on the things that are before us today. We cannot agree to the proposed bill as it sits, because we haven't finalized the Akaitcho process or negotiations. How can we as Dene agree to something that we already own and have somebody else be the boss of it? That's why we as Akaitcho do not agree with devolution and all the other bills before the committee.

I don't want to tell you about the argument I had with the Prime Minister about the chicken and the egg, but we as Akaitcho want to see our negotiations finish before any devolution takes effect. The very things that we are negotiating in our agreement, in the devolution, we haven't finalized with Canada or the GNWT.

In conclusion, Akaitcho suggest that there be broader strategy to allow Akaitcho Dene to participate in and benefit from resources developed in Akaitcho territory. As you have heard, Akaitcho have a GDP of 50% or more in the NWT. While Akaitcho may be prepared to participate in devolution and benefit from resources that are developing, we cannot prepare to participate in the process until we see a comprehensive study done on how the first nations can be engaged to develop a long-term strategy for the future of our first nations and the future economy of the NWT.

Like anybody else, we cannot sit by while resource extraction.... It's not an indefinite process in terms of our negotiations, and we as Akaitcho want to be prepared for the future too. Above all, issues need to be addressed in a comprehensive fashion to ensure that Akaitcho benefit from future resources in the other developments in the NWT, the same with other regions, resources, developers, or governments. This Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is one of the very things we are negotiating in the Akaitcho process.

As you can see, we have grave concerns. We have given you a submission, which I will not repeat here. I'm sure the committee will review that submission in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you. We do have copies of that submission. We'll make sure the committee members get that, absolutely.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your opening statements.

We'll turn now to Chief Norwegian.

Thank you so much for being here. We know you're all busy, gentlemen, and we appreciate the fact that you have taken time out of your busy day to be here.

I'll turn it over to you, Chief Norwegian.

[Grand Chief Herb Norwegian, Grand Chief, Dehcho First Nations]

Mr. Chair and standing committee members, thank you for allowing me to come before you to talk about some really important issues that we all face here in this part of Canada.

It wasn't too long ago when the Canadian government was just a visitor in our homeland. It wasn't too long ago when we started talking about trust and peace among our people. Today when we take a look at the various laws and government positions that are being taken on our homeland, it puts us in a real awkward position, because for many of us, we're still landlords. None of us have given up our land, particularly in the Dehcho territory. Not one grain of sand belongs to the Government of Canada. That is our position and it will remain our position.

When we see these positions that are being put before us, such as the bill on the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and devolution, it puts us at a disadvantage. Here we are dealing with a situation that we have no control over. Instead, what happens is that the door is left wide open for an onslaught of development where it would only be the minister who would have final say over such development.

In the Dehcho territory right now we are negotiating with Canada trying to reach an agreement to put us back on track where we should be. Over the last few years it's been difficult especially when we had the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act dropped on us. In the same breath, our people have been looking at a number of ways of how we can actually start managing our land. We have always taken the view that we needed something that would be equivalent to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, something that we call the Dehcho resource management authority. That was created about 10 or 12 years ago. We had some great discussions. We had Canada on side with it. There were a number of agreements in place. Today, it is still our belief that the Dehcho resource management act is still very much alive in the minds of our people.

This whole act, Bill C-15, puts us in a real awkward position. What we're seeing here is that as the bill is being put into place and as devolution unfolds and empowers the territorial government, it puts us in a very difficult position. The very authorities that we seek for ourselves are the things that are going to be transferred to the territorial government.

For us, the territorial government has always been a government that has just sat on the sidelines. It's more of an interim government. When we see governments unfold in our different regions throughout the valley, such as the Dehcho, you will see a new style of life in the valley. You will see Dehcho governments. You will see Tlicho governments. You will see Sahtu governments. These are the governments that will be thriving new governments once we have some final agreements. Once devolution and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act are in play, it will take that ability away from us.

We've always had these concerns. It really hasn't fit well with the kinds of things we're trying to do in our territory. It creates a lot of problems, especially when we're trying to negotiate with Canada and trying to reach a final agreement. Every step of the way we have had to fight in order to get where we are today. Right now in our Dehcho process agreements we're probably about 60% concluded. Every inch of the way it has been like climbing this incredible mountain. Every time we have taken a step, there has been something in our way; an avalanche of some magnitude seems to have come in our direction, but we've prevailed. We've weathered the storm, and we've stayed right on track.

Thanks to the great elders and to the ones who have passed on. These are the ones who have given us that spiritual strength and the guidance to stay there and stay on top of these issues. This is what we're dealing with. It's not just the Dehcho. It's people right down the valley, the people in the communities who are just up in arms and wondering what is going on. Why is this being shoved down our throats?

Like the rest of the regions, the Dehcho have taken a very firm position, especially on devolution. The Dehcho have not taken a position on whether we support it or not. We're still exploring and we're still trying to analyze what this is going to mean to us in the long run. Today, I'm hoping that you people who sit on this committee have a real serious look at this Bill C-15, because you're actually going to change the whole lifestyle and the way that our people live here in the north, and that is a pretty serious step.

I have to speak on behalf of our people, and our young people especially, because it's their tomorrow that we're dealing with here. The elders came from yesterday and told us exactly the very thing that I'm talking about here today. What we're dealing with here is the future of our young people, the young people who want to take on this new future, this new creation, this new thing that we're creating for them. If it doesn't happen, only one person is to blame, and it's got to be Canada. We're still standing firm and we are going to continue to move forward.

These are the things that I think are firm, that we feel in our hearts, and we'll continue to stand. It's important that Canada, and you, understand that we want to do business with Canada, but how can we do business with them when they can't be trusted? Every inch of the way we had to fight. When I say “we”, I'm talking about people in the north here, us people. We're the ones who have to put up with every bill and every act that you've put before us. I think today we're together more than anything else, and I think that we need to continue to keep this pressure on because it's making life miserable for a lot of our people.

I hope that people who are on this committee understand exactly where it is that we're coming from because I'm sure that, once it goes ahead, there will be some serious problems. The things that are just happening at this pace, it's incredible. I'd like to think that there is a solution in this. I'd like to try to be as diplomatic as possible and try to grab some results. But at the same time, when you're being stonewalled and you're dealing with a tsunami of issues that the federal government is dealing with, it's really, really hard to deal with a government in that kind of situation.

I'd like to leave it at that. My assistant here might want to say a few words.

Again, I want to thank you for these comments. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn to Chief Erasmus now. Thank you so much for being here.

[Chief Bill Erasmus, National Chief, Dene Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

I want to thank you for being here so that we have an opportunity to speak to your committee. You invited us to appear. As others have said today, you're in our homeland, and you're welcome here.

I want to support the people who made presentations and who are part of our nation, the Dene Nation. We heard from many of them this morning. You have key people here to help explain the reality that exists here in a legal context, because this is all legal.

I have beside me Elder Francois Paulette, who chairs the Dene Nation Elders Council. I'll make reference to him and other leaders, who on our behalf in the early seventies went to court to challenge Canada's claim to our homeland here. Francois Paulette was the leading chief of the time, and we have two more of those chiefs who are still alive. We have Elder Daniel Sonfrere on the Hay River Reserve—and we'll hear from Chief Roy Fabian a little later today—and also Chief Charlie Barnaby, who is still alive. Those are the three people who we still have alive from that time. We heard from Chief Sangris a little earlier; his father also represented us from this area.

It has to be clear that we are direct descendants of people who entered into the legal instruments with Great Britain on behalf of your people, on behalf of your subjects. We are not subjects of the crown. We are part of what are called “Indian Nations”. The royal proclamation that your king endorsed in 1763 made it very clear that in order to come into our territory you had to enter into treaties with us.

Those treaties in 1899 and 1900 were made to gain access to the Yukon, which people referred to this morning. The gold rush was taking place in the Yukon. Many people were coming through this territory. They were interfering with us, so the crown was compelled at that time to enter into an agreement with us. Later, in 1921, the next treaty, Treaty No. 11, the last numbered treaty, happened because oil was discovered down the Mackenzie River in the Sahtu territory, so a treaty was made again in 1921 to have legal access into that territory.

We found out in the fifties and sixties that Canada in fact believed they owned our land, so we got ourselves organized. Our organization in the early days was called the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories. I have evidence here that I'll provide to you, which includes our constitution, bylaws, and other documents.

We organized ourselves. We went to court to challenge Canada's assertion over our lands, and Justice William Morrow came up with his decision.

What he did was very remarkable for that time, because rather than asking people to come to Yellowknife from all of our 30-odd communities, he went into our communities, our settlements, and our villages, and he spoke to people who were still alive and had been present at treaty time. There were interpreters and there were chiefs, and this included people on both sides, because Canada still had people alive who were there at treaty time.

He heard all the evidence and concluded that our people are the prima facie owners of the land, so we are the landowners, as Chief Norwegian just stated. That has never been contested in court.

So whatever happens here is very, very important. You're attempting to pass legislation on lands that belong to Indians who you have no legal authority over.

There's one question I want to pose to you, Mr. Chairman. Your legal obligation as a parliamentarian is to have authority over whatever it is you propose to legislate, so please provide to us the legal authority and boundaries that you have to pass legislation in our territory. That's one question we'd like to present to you. I don't know if you do that, or if indeed the Prime Minister does that, or the Governor General, but we would like to see that, because nowhere will you find it on paper that you have the authority. We'd be very interested to see it.

I could go on to a large extent here, but I want to tell you that I have copies of the Paulette case. I don't have copies of the Frank Calder case, which proved that the Nisga'a also had title, but as a parliamentarian you could find that easily in your government library.

It's significant because prior to that—I believe all of the people here at the table remember 1973, when the judgments were made—we were told that we didn't have anything called “treaty” rights or “aboriginal” rights. If there was such a thing, it was either legislated away or it was extinguished at treaty time.

So when these judgments came down, we were very pleased. It was 41 years ago. We thought at that time that we would be able to exercise this right that is clearly inherent. It doesn't come from Canada. It doesn't come from Great Britain. It has always been here. We've been here for at least 30,000 years.

Today we find ourselves in this predicament that is, as Chief Norwegian says, very awkward. Indeed it is.

I have been the elected leader of the Dene since 1987, and I've had the privilege, Mr. Chairman, to be involved in discussions like this and to sign agreements on behalf of our people. I will present to you—contrary to what we heard this morning from some of the witnesses—that we indeed signed an agreement in principle. On behalf of the Dene, I signed. On behalf of the Métis, Mike Paulette signed, and on behalf of Canada, Prime Minister Mulroney signed. The territorial government didn't have an official signature. As you know, they are an administrative arm of the federal government. They were there as witnesses but not as sub-signatories. We then did sign a final agreement in April 1990.

So we do have a final agreement that was signed. This first document was signed in Behchoko, commonly called Rae-Edzo. This document was signed in N'Dilo in 1990. It was signed by the federal government, ourselves, and the Métis, with the territorial government again as witnesses.

There was a final agreement in April of that year, and by November, in this very room that we're meeting in, Canada met with us and walked away from the table. When people say the agreement failed, it's because Canada walked away from the table. They then unilaterally imposed a whole new way of dealing with our people. Rather than all of our 30 communities, they changed their policy, which at that time was to deal with all of our people. They began to deal with regions.

We have five regions, and they vary in size—some as few as four communities, and others as large as 11. In 1992, as you heard this morning, the Gwich'in came up with their agreement, which we've always supported. It's constitutionally entrenched. It's subject to treaties 8 and 11, which are the foundation of the fabric of the country up here.

The Sahtu came up with their agreement—signed, endorsed, constitutionally entrenched—in 1993.

The Tlicho, as we heard, are now in their ninth year of governance. They have 39,000 square miles of land that they outright own and legislate with legislative authority. Someone now is trying to change that.

So we have a huge issue that we need to deal with.

I don't want to take all the time because I want to have Elder Paulette also make some comments because it's paramount that he does.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the consent of the Dene Indians is required. If you look at treaties 8 and 11, which we will give you copies of, it was very clear that Queen Victoria for the first treaty, and King George V for the next treaty, came up to acquire our consent. Justice Morrow made it very clear that we did not surrender. We were never defeated in war. We never relinquished our rights. Our treaties were instruments of peace and friendship, international instruments. They go all the way up to the Arctic Ocean, which in law means 200 miles out into the Arctic Ocean. So you begin to get into it.

Treaty 11 also goes into the Yukon, so what happens in the Yukon is subject to Treaty 11. The present day Nunavut Treaty 11 goes to Coppermine. It encompasses Coppermine, Paulatuk, Inuvik, Sachs Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk—where they want to build that new road—and so on. That is all Treaty 11 territory. These instruments cannot be denied. They're valid. We need to talk about what the future's going to compel us to deal with.

In my conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to support what Mr. Bevington said, who's a resident of the Northwest Territories, who grew up with us and married among us. His grandchildren play hockey with our grandchildren. He talked about the fact that we have always talked about our future. I'll also provide you with a report that Commissioner Jim Bourque provided to people of the north in the early nineties, which talked about options for constitutional development. We've had very in-depth discussions. We've always been regarded as people who would determine their own futures, not someone from the outside.

Finally, I want to make reference to two letters, one that I sent to Justice Beverley McLachlin, the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Canada in the Supreme Court, which I sent on October 25, 2012, because of our deep concerns as to what was being proposed in devolution and other developments in Canada. What I outlined to Justice McLachlin were some of the things that I mentioned today, but I made specific reference to the courts, because in a parliamentary democracy, which you are part of, we have our own government on this side. The parliamentary democracy that you are a part of has a separate institution called the judicial fabric, which you have to follow. It has to be enforced. You make the laws and the executive arm tries to enact them. If they don't enact them properly, and someone challenges it and they win the court case, then things have to change.

The problem is that things have not changed according to the ruling, so we made reference to Supreme Court judgments. For example, Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada, on the aboriginal right to self-government, said, “the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal, duty to enter into and conduct [self-government negotiations with first nations] in good faith.”

Per Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada on the aboriginal right to self-government:

Shared sovereignty, in our view, is a hallmark of the Canadian federation and a central feature of the three-cornered relations that link Aboriginal governments, provincial governments and the federal government. These governments are sovereign within their respective spheres and hold their powers by virtue of their constitutional status rather than by delegation.

In other words, no one delegated authority to us. We are here in our own standing and sovereignty.

Per Justice Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada on the aboriginal right to self-government:

What is significant is that the Royal Commission itself sees aboriginal peoples as full participants with non-aboriginal peoples in a shared Canadian sovereignty. Aboriginal peoples do not stand in opposition to, nor are they subjugated by, Canadian sovereignty. They are part of it.

We are very fortunate, Mr. Chairman, to have people like George Erasmus, who lives in this community and is still alive, and who chaired this commission. I suggest you speak to him and ask him what the Supreme Court meant when their report came out in the early 1990s when Canada spent over $60 million on the subject we're talking about today.

Also, per Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada and Justice Dussault of the Quebec Court of Appeal, who was the co-chair of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples with George Erasmus, on the treaty right to self-government, after noting “the essential link between the right and power of a people to govern themselves and the act of treaty making”, they wrote that the “implicit treaty right of governance has not been recognized” and that the time was right for Canadians and their governments to recognize the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government and to make room in the Canadian federation for its exercise.

The Royal Commission found that the spirit and intent of the treaties required the crown to respect the inherent right of the treaty nations to govern their own affairs and territories. It has also confirmed that in entering into nation-to-nation treaties with first nations, the crown has already acknowledged their self-governing nation status.

Finally, per Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada and Justice Dussault of the Quebec Court of Appeal on the treaty rights of self government:

[The first nations of Canada] have waited steadfastly for implementation of their treaty rights.... It is the Crown that has marginalized the treaties to the point where questioning their validity—clearly as a last resort—might become an option....

If the validity of the historical treaties—or certain key components of them, including the extinguishment clauses—were placed before the courts, key aspects of many portions of the written texts might be set aside.

If this occurs that would result in a crown having to negotiate the historical treaties from scratch.

Mr. Chairman, it's clear that what you're doing is in question. You are here under section 91 powers. The provinces have section 92 powers. We have section 35 powers under the Canadian Constitution. We ensured that happened in 1982. Our people went to England. We had Lord Denning render a judgment saying that if the constitution indeed comes to Canada, you have to act as if you were England. In other words, you have to honour the treaties.

Mr. Chairman, with that I thank you. We will present you with some of our documents. There's a table of contents. I won't read them out because of the lack of time, but they are provided for you.

Thank you for this opportunity. Mahsi cho.