Evidence of meeting #10 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
We are running over time here.
Did Mr. Paulette want to make a comment? It's important that we hear. It's more important than if we ask questions.
2:20 p.m.
Francois Paulette Chief, Dene Nation Elder's Council
I will work on being as diplomatic as I can be. You young people who are sitting here know very little of our history. I'm a direct descendant of the headmen and leaders who entered into treaty at Smith’s Landing in 1899.
At the age of 21, I became a chief in my community. I'm a non-elected chief. A year after that, we engaged in the Paulette case that's been talked about. I'm not going to get into that.
What I do want to say about the Paulette case is that Judge Morrow in his ruling says that your version of the treaty, Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, where we extinguished.... That's what the crown says. As for Justice Morrow's ruling, in his words he doubted that the Dene ever surrendered. I want you to look at that case.
I'm going to get right into the 1930 NRTA act in the south and Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In 1930 Canada, the crown, deliberately made omission of the treaty first nations at these talks about the resources, their lands, and their way of life, and to this day the first nations are struggling and talking about their resources. You just look south of the 60th parallel and the tar sands.
Neil Young's concert honoured the treaties. Bill C-15 devolution resembles and perhaps is the NRTA act that is now being imposed on the Dene up here. It is no different. The Dene play a very small part, if any, in the bilateral relations that you have with the crown.
This NWT Act does not have a constitution. There was an attempt in 1990 to have a constitution developed by all people, including non-indigenous people. Why hasn't that happened? It should have happened or we wouldn't have this discussion. That's a huge oversight of the territorial government and the crown, but now you want to implement and change the NWT Act without consulting the people, without consulting the treaty first nations. That's a sin.
In 1967, forty civil servants got off the plane here in Yellowknife, and today there are about 5,000 civil servants controlling every facet of our lands that you are about to transfer to the north. These legal documents, by convention, by Parliament, you are dismantling them. I find that to be very unconstitutional. I find that to dishonour our forefathers and your forefathers.
By the way, the NWT Act is weaker than the Indian Act. The Indian Act has more power and authority over the NWT Act by law and by Constitution.
These are my final comments as I want to keep this short. Below the 49th parallel there was the George Bush doctrine where he said that if you are not with us, then you are against us. Harper has adopted this philosophy, this doctrine. Your standing committee is carrying out this doctrine because your minds are already made up. You are just rubber-stamping. I feel very dishonoured that our treaties are not being respected.
We have two unfinished pieces of business with treaties. Dehcho Treaty 8, are you expecting these people to be harnessed into this mega-regulatory board? I doubt it. I would ask you to ease off these lands. These resources are going to be here. They are not going anywhere. It's a pity where we are in our history. What you call democracy is not being followed.
Are you adhering to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Are you adhering to other conventions that were made at the UN? No.
All the rules and laws that were there to protect our waters have been lifted. Where is our protection?
I'm very embarrassed and insulted that you are carrying this out on the people who are the rightful owners of this land.
I want to stop there. Thank you.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Paulette.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your taking time out of your day. We came here to listen and that's what we've done. We certainly appreciate that you have come with great wisdom and your life experiences. Thank you for your testimony.
Our time has expired, but as I said, we came here to listen, and certainly it was important that we did so. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and for taking the time to bring your testimony.
Chief Erasmus, did you have a question or a final comment?
2:30 p.m.
National Chief, Dene Nation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I left out just one point in trying to rush my presentation. You are most likely aware that we wrote the committee to invite them to come to all of our communities because this impacts all of us. We believe the proposed bill would guarantee the Northwest Territories provincial powers that would make them a responsible government. That needs to be read into the record.
The final point I wanted to make is that earlier today we sent a letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, to inform her of the deliberations that are happening here and also to inform your government that it has to adhere to our treaties. I also want you to know that so it's on the record. The letter we sent to Queen Elizabeth is not cc'd to you but it is cc'd to Governor General David Johnston, who represents the crown, as you know, and who is a direct representative for the Indian treaties. Also, it was sent to the Hon. George Tuccaro, who is the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. It was also sent to the Dene leadership and to United States President Barack Obama, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 doesn't cover only what is called Canada. It covers all of North America, which includes the United States of America. It was also sent to the Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper, for his attention.
Thank you.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It's not the usual parliamentary practice to have witnesses without questions. Can we do something about that through committee hearings in Ottawa if we're not able to question these witnesses? I think it's important to question these witnesses, because they represent the non-fulfilled land claims in the Northwest Territories. I have some specific questions I want to ask them. Dialogue is important.
If you're going to make this ruling now, can we give some guarantee that there will be some committee time later on in the month when we can bring these people back either to Ottawa or through—
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm happy to entertain your questions if you do have questions for the witnesses. It's important.
We'll turn it over to you, Mr. Bevington.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Okay. Thank you.
One of the key aspects of this is how this action on the part of the federal government is going to affect the negotiations on the claims agreements that are still outstanding.
I'd like some comments back on how you see this bill, which is likely going to be passed through Parliament. In the last while, I haven't seen this Conservative government do anything that fails to get through this particular committee, usually without any amendments. In the case that you are faced with this new designation of authority in the Northwest Territories going forward, how do you see this impacting your ongoing claims negotiations? As other witnesses have pointed out, they are very important to the future of the Northwest Territories. Everyone agrees that we need to get the claims completed.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
NDP
2:35 p.m.
Chief Negotiator, Akaitcho First Nations, NWT Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bevington.
The devolution process and the structural changes being contemplated for the legislation for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and other regulatory changes that we see coming forth really have, in our opinion, a major impact on our ability to negotiate unencumbered by those instruments, because they do set limitations clearly in front of us as to what it is we can and cannot negotiate.
I could go on in great detail about those, but those are in our submission. We've handed in a 28-page document. They do have major impacts on our ability to have flexibility in certain areas where we feel we should have the opportunity to sit and negotiate arrangements, or arrangements that we feel are appropriate for our particular region. The dynamics of the Akaitcho territory, as you can see, are quite different from other regions.
We have almost half of the Northwest Territories population base sitting in the Akaitcho territory. That's Yellowknife. Most of the infrastructure of the north—roads, railways, airports, all-season highways, etc.—are within the Akaitcho territory, from which most of the GDP that has been generated for the last 50 to 80 years has come. The forecast into the future in terms of the mining strategy and where we go from here as a territory has a major impact within the Akaitcho territory.
So the dynamics of what we see today and what we see being forecast for the future should allow us to have the ability to negotiate arrangements that we feel are ones we can live with. They should allow us to partake in the future benefits of economic development here in the north. You've heard other from regions where they have very little development, if any at all, so the impacts are a lot less. Groups that settled 20 years ago, 15 years, or nine years.... Today we're faced with different social and environmental impacts that we didn't see at that time.
So yes, there will be major impacts for us.
January 27th, 2014 / 2:35 p.m.
Larry Innes Legal Counsel, Dehcho First Nations
Perhaps I could just add some specifics to what Mr. Balsillie has said.
One of the principles that Canada has had in its negotiations with aboriginal peoples in respect of the co-management of lands and resources is that there's a degree of parity between the aboriginal perspective and that of crown governments.
What we see in the specific changes being made under Bill C-15 is that this balance is no longer present. In fact it has radically shifted in favour of federal representatives, and the numbers of representatives, to the extent that the chair would be federally chosen. A quorum on the super-board, on the reconstituted MVRMA, would no longer even require a representative from the region.
So we fail to see, from the perspective of the Dehcho First Nations, how Canada is fulfilling its obligations to maintain some parity, some equality, either at the table with the Dehcho First Nations in its negotiations or indeed for the Dehcho in its reconstituted super-board. Neither is being maintained.
This is fundamentally disrespectful to the principles under which the Dehcho have entered these negotiations, and it's fundamentally at odds with the honour of the crown.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
Chief, NWT Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation
Yes.
To the question of devolution, the question hasn't been answered by the government on the fiduciary duty of the government, of the crown. That question has to be answered. We Akaitcho have never ceded or surrendered our land. That's why we are still in negotiations. Yet the question of the fiduciary duty of the crown hasn't been answered by the government to Akaitcho to satisfy us that we should go along with devolution.
That is only one of the many concerns we have for the Akaitcho. We have noticed the experiences in every province where the governments, between the provincial and federal governments, throw a ball around on who really has the duty to consult and accommodate those first nations that are non-reserve. North of 60, there are only one or two reserves. The rest is not on reserve.
Mahsi.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
I believe Ms. Jones has some questions and maybe some comments—
Oh, sorry, Chief Erasmus, I missed you there. We'll hear from you first, and then we'll hear from Ms. Jones.
2:40 p.m.
National Chief, Dene Nation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for your patience and your understanding on the importance of this dialogue.
As I sit here and listen, I'm remembering what was actually occurring at the time. I want to take a little bit of time to remind people what was happening in 1990, when all of us were at the table.
We were mandated—I can only speak to our side—through all of our people, the descendants of the Dene. That included the treaty Indians and the non-treaty Indians. Some of our people called themselves Métis. Whatever they called themselves, we made agreement amongst ourselves that we define our own membership. This includes people who we accept in our communities. In other words, anyone could be a Dene based on our own laws and our own requirements. That's how we were at the table.
Now, in 1990, when, as I mentioned earlier, Canada walked away from the table, it was really quite a volatile time. I don't know what you were doing at the time, but as I say, I was the political leader of the Dene. You will remember that the Oka crisis was taking place at that time, in the summer of 1990. Meech Lake accord discussions were going on, which was the whole question of what authority Quebec would have. Quebec had problems with the Constitution being amended as it was. There was also a whole discussion of authorities that we would have as first nations.
Initially when we were in our negotiations, up until 1986 we had many issues at our table. We were trying to have a full package that would include political authority, recognizing the people of the north in charge of their own homeland. What happened in 1986 was that we couldn't go that far, and we agreed to get into discussions on a “mini” package. It was called a mini-package because it was smaller, which included land and economics. It did not include compensation, as negotiator Don Balsillie mentioned earlier, it didn't include delivery of programs and services by our people, and it didn't include royalties and revenue-sharing.
When we signed the agreement in principle in 1988, Dennis Patterson was the Government Leader—he was not called the premier then—in September 1988, and he got a call from Prime Minister Mulroney. Dennis Patterson, as you probably are aware, is a senator now, which is good, because it keeps him involved. When we have an opportunity to speak to the Senate, we will have that discussion.
But Prime Minister Mulroney told Dennis Patterson that they were prepared to enter into a northern accord. He asked Dennis Patterson to call me, as the leader of the Dene, to let us know that we would soon engage in those discussions, as we were going to sign the AIP. I was a little bit concerned that the discussion hadn't come up earlier, and I asked Dennis Patterson why. He said, well, I can't answer you that question, but I am passing the message on.
Mr. Chairman, one of the points I'm making is that if you go back and look at the early documents that talk about a northern accord, it was not devolution, what it is today. In 1988 the idea was that we had gone as far as we could with the authorities that cabinet had and the discussions on our side relating to land and resources, but we were prepared to get into an accord.
As you know, an accord is much different from devolution. The intent was never to have Canada be the recognized owners of the resource, transferring it to someone else, because our agreement didn't allow that. So you have to take it within the context of the reality, the legal reality, of the day.
It has moved from the Dene being the landowners—the Dene and the Métis, whatever we might call ourselves—to the feds suddenly having control and giving that to a territorial government, which is part of their administration under section 91, and granting them section 92 powers, essentially making them a province. For us as a people, that would change our constitutionally entrenched agreement and provide us a little bit of money.
In other words, take authority away from us, give it to someone else, and give us a little bit of money. It's really important that you understand that, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I just want to make the comment that Don Balsillie made. We've also provided a copy of the Official Languages Act in the Northwest Territories, which recognizes all our languages, including that of the Inuit. We're asking that the next time you come here, you please provide for interpreters so that it is in our language.
Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Chief.
I also want to thank Mr. Strahl for ceding his time to allow for extended witness time.
We'll turn to Ms. Jones.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you very much.
I want to thank you for your presentations today. They're not only very passionate, but they obviously speak to the long history you've had of working with your aboriginal governments and in your communities.
I want to state for the record, in case you weren't here this morning, why I'm standing to the side of the room. I have a back problem, and I find it very difficult to sit, so while I'm not sitting at the table with you, I'm standing in the room with you. I want to point that out and point out that I'm very attentive to the issues you're bringing forward.
I sense from your presentations that you have a lot of distrust of governments and of the federal government, I guess because of the long history of trying to move forward the aboriginal and first nations agenda in the country. Any of us who are involved, either at this table or at any level in the country, can certainly see and understand some of the poor track records that we've had with first nations people. Your points are well taken in that manner.
My concern as a committee member is how the passing of this bill could impact, first of all, the treaty agreements that you already have. There has been a lot of discussion on that. Secondly, how will it impact the resolution of your land claims and will it in fact delay any of that process in any way? I look forward to hearing your response.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Was that directed to anyone specifically, Ms. Jones? I think the question was with regard to possible delays.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
I'm sure they all have an answer, because they're all politicians themselves.
2:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
2:45 p.m.
Conservative