Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2015

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

As you can tell, Mr. Chair runs a very tight ship.

It's good to be here in Yukon to conduct in one day the equivalent of two weeks of hearings we would have in Ottawa, considering the number of panels we're having.

I want to go back to policy direction. We've seen four examples of policy direction in other northern regimes, including the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the NWT. In each case, policy direction was used by a Liberal government minister to clearly communicate expectations based on interim measures and agreements with first nations. There was a requirement that notification be provided to both the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Denesuline regarding licences and permits, that instruction be provided to the board regarding its obligation under the Deh Cho interim measures agreement, and that the board ensure that it carried out its functions in cooperation with the Akaitcho Dene First Nation and its pre-screening board.

Certainly the examples of the Liberal government using this had to do with protecting first nations rights. I'm a little perplexed when I hear people concerned about policy direction when it has only ever been used to protect first nations' rights with these boards.

Maybe you could comment on how you think policy direction could be used here in Yukon and on why you support that part of the bill.

[Darrell Pasloski]

Again, I believe that policy direction provides that opportunity to ensure that there is a common understanding between the board and the government, and it does help reduce uncertainty and delays. Policy direction must be consistent with the UFA, with YESAA, with individual land claims, and in fact, all Yukon legislation. As I've mentioned, it's common in other jurisdictions.

Policy direction cannot change the assessment process itself. It cannot expand or restrict the powers of the board and policy direction cannot interfere with active or completed reviews. To your point, Mr. Strahl, it has been used in the past really to provide additional consultation or to protect the rights of first nations.

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

Absolutely.

I did want to talk as well, and Minister Kent mentioned it, about how this is important in terms of regulatory efficiency, not just for resource development but for public infrastructure, highways, and the like. Do you see the amendments as a positive step that will improve processes and provide a general public benefit? Maybe you could describe how you see that helping on the ground.

[Scott Kent]

Sure. My other portfolio of responsibility is Minister of Highways and Public Works. Certainly this process is something that the Yukon government has to go through as well with many of the projects that we're undertaking with respect to highways or aviation infrastructure, those types of things.

I think these amendments that are being proposed will benefit projects across the board. This isn't environmental assessment legislation, as I mentioned earlier, strictly with respect to the mining industry. There are a number of other industries as well as public infrastructure. We've seen electrical energy projects by our crown corporation, the Yukon Energy Corporation, go through the assessment process as well. Anything that we can do to ensure that we protect and respect the environmental integrity with respect to these assessments is important, but making it as efficient as possible is also important.

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

Thank you very much for coming today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

That will conclude our first panel.

I do want to thank Premier Pasloski, Minister Kent, and Ms. Stinson for being here with us on behalf of the Government of Yukon. We appreciate your understanding and patience with the timeframe. As Mr. Strahl mentioned, the committee directed that we would hear from as many people as possible today and be as inclusive as possible, so it's my job, unfortunately, to be the bad guy who has to cut people off occasionally. I know it is not always easy and I appreciate your graciousness in that. You have set a fine example for how the day will go.

Thank you very much for your time today.

I would now ask that the next panellists move forward as quickly as possible.

I will suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I'll call the meeting back to order, and we will welcome our next panel here this morning.

With us we have from the Council of Yukon First Nations, Ruth Massie, grand chief, and Daryn Leas, legal counsel.

From Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation we have Chief Eric Fairclough.

From Teslin Tlingit Council we have Carl Sidney, chief , and Tom Cove, director of the department of lands and resources, as well as James Harper, representative.

From Woodward and Company we have as representative, Leigh Anne Baker.

From Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation we have Chief Roberta Joseph.

From White River First Nation we have Chief Angela Demit and Janet Vander Meer, lands coordinator.

We'll start from the top and go in the order we have in front of us, beginning with the Council of Yukon First Nations.

Grand Chief Massie, the next seven minutes are your time.

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations]

Good morning. My name is Ruth Massie. I'm the grand chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill S-6 to the standing committee, and thank you for your willingness to travel to Yukon to hear all of us.

All Yukoners and interested parties should have the opportunity to make submissions to this committee. This committee owes it to Yukoners, given the importance of the proposed legislation.

You will hear from a number of Yukon first nations today, including many self-governing first nations with constitutionally protected land claim and self-government agreements. These agreements recognize their authority as governments.

CYFN and all 11 self-governing first nations are unanimously opposed to four provisions that are part of Bill S-6. We also unanimously recognize the importance of having a YESAA process that will promote sustainable economic and community development.

As part of that, we also need certainty that projects will not compromise our rights and interests. As currently drafted, Bill S-6 does not achieve this balance. In fact, the discussion and concerns about these amendments have already brought a level of uncertainty within industry that never arose during the YESAA five-year review.

During this review, all levels of government—federal, first nations, and Yukon—worked together in accordance with our treaties to improve YESAA. Bill S-6 has two types of amendments, those that came before the five-year review and those that Canada introduced unilaterally.

The changes that come from the five-year review represent a compromise that was developed through many hours of discussion. In some cases the changes do not represent our preferred approach, but we continue to support the amendments because we reached a common understanding with Canada and Yukon, and we honour that agreement. The amendments we oppose were introduced unilaterally by the Government of Canada after the federal minister terminated the five-year review discussions. Some of these were proposed to Canada by Yukon. Neither Canada nor Yukon ever raised these issues for discussion during the five-year review. If they were so important, why were they not raised?

I'm going to summarize our opposition to the four proposed amendments and describe the changes we are requesting that the committee recommend and that the House of Commons approve.

Because the government failed to meet its constitutional and common law duties to consult and accommodate, and to date has not met the requirements of the honour of the crown, we strongly urge this committee to address our requests in your report to the House of Commons to implement those recommendations.

We oppose giving the minister full power to issue binding policy direction to the YESAB as proposed in clause 34 of Bill S-6. We request that the committee recommend that clause 34 be removed.

On delegation of powers, we oppose giving the minister the power to delegate his powers, duties, or functions to the Yukon government minister as proposed in clause 2 of Bill S-6. We request that the committee recommend that clause 2 be amended by deleting the proposed section 6.1 wording.

On timelines, we oppose the establishment of beginning-to-end timelines for assessments conducted under YESAA.

On exemption from assessment for project renewals and amendments, we oppose the proposed exemption from assessment for renewals and amendments of licences and permits as proposed in clause 14 of Bill S-6. We request that the committee recommend that clause 14 be removed.

CYFN and Yukon first nations spent 20 years negotiating these agreements that achieve the objective of collaboration and partnership. We will not stand by while Canada chips away at our agreements.

On December 1 in the House of Commons, Minister Valcourt encouraged us to use the courts to address our concerns stating, “If the first nations claim that we have failed in our duty to consult, the court will determine the issue, and they are welcome to use the courts.”

It is not our preference to commence court action to address our concerns. In addition to being costly and protracted, court action would damage relationships among the parties and damage economic development in Yukon in our future. Our preference is reconciliation.

The federal government's approach on Bill S-6 is a roadblock to reconciliation. Participants in mining, tourism, and other industries are concerned about how Bill S-6 might adversely affect the future for resource development in Yukon. They have echoed our call to the federal government to work with us to find solutions to the concerns we have raised.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Grand Chief Massie.

We'll move to Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, Chief Eric Fairclough.

[Chief Eric Fairclough, Chief, Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to introduce myself. I have been the chief of Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation since 2012. I have been a member of the legislative assembly for over 15 years before that, and I served as chief between 1990 and 1996. As such, I am familiar with the final agreements.

I want to note that we are aware of and support the other first nations' statements here today. The Yukon first nations reiterate that the proposed four amendments undermine the spirit and intent of chapter 12 of the final agreements. If the four amendments proposed by Bill S-6 are proclaimed, the crown will have breached its constitutional duties owed to Yukon first nations.

The Yukon senator and member of Parliament have pointed out that section 4 of YESAA provides that in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between the final agreement and YESAA, the final agreement will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict. Section 4 does not address our concerns about the potential breach of our rights. Further to that, we do not understand why our senator and member of Parliament oppose Yukon first nations' and many Yukoners' views on the four objectionable amendments.

First, it's important to understand that chapter 12 outlines the general structure of YESAA and its functions and powers to guide the development of YESAA by Yukon first nations, Canada and Yukon. This means that chapter 12 and its objectives inform the development of the act and its regulations, but chapter 12 does not comprehensively define the structure, function, and powers of the YESAA process. The parties defined the YESAA process in government-to-government negotiations during the development of YESAA. The agreements reached in those discussions can't be changed unilaterally under the constitutional structure of Canada. We assert that the federal government does not have this legal authority.

Second, YESAA originates from and is rooted in our land claim agreements. It manages the use and the development of lands, waters, and resources in Yukon. As a result, implementation of YESAA may affect the exercise of aboriginal treaty rights. In this case, the crown has not acted in accordance with its constitutional duties owed to Yukon first nations. The crown has breached its duties to work with Yukon first nations and take steps to accommodate our concerns. The crown has not acted honourably or fairly. The crown has breached its constitutional duty to act in the honour of the crown. The crown's proposed amendments would serve to infringe on our aboriginal treaty rights, including the rights for independent assessment of projects, or the right for comprehensive reviews for projects in accordance with chapter 12. Canada's proposed amendments would adversely affect the integrity, independence, and effectiveness of the YESAA process.

Despite the concerns raised by Yukon first nations, federal government officials have not engaged in any discussion in good faith with Yukon first nations to address our concerns related to the four proposed amendments. We worked together collaboratively to draft the act and regulations. We need to do the same on any amendments.

For example, in April 2014, Canada specifically requested our input into the suitability of the proposed timelines. We provided written responses opposing the concept of beginning-to-end timelines, and also provided rationales for why the proposed timelines were too short. In May 2014, Canada decided to further shorten the timelines for all assessments, exactly the opposite of what first nations had recommended. Canada was unable to provide a rationale for why it not only failed to accommodate our concerns, but in fact took action in the opposite direction. The federal government would breach its constitutional duty to uphold the honour of the crown if it proceeded unilaterally with the proposed four amendments that do not arise from the collaborative five-year review.

Let's set the record straight. We have listened to the debate in the House of Commons, to the statements made by the ministers responsible, to our own member of Parliament, and to the premier. We are frustrated by the lack of understanding and respect to our treaties shown by them. We need to correct some of that record.

Fact: unlike the processes used for developing YESAA and completing the five-year review, the Government of Canada has not used a collaborative approach to developing the proposed changes to YESAA. In fact, twice we were promised that a joint working group would be established to provide departmental officials with the required information for the development of legislative drafting instructions. It is a fact that a working group was never established, and we were never asked to provide input on the development of drafting instructions for the four amendments.

Fact: the court has been clear that the context of the treaty must be given a large, liberal, and contextual interpretation of the goal of reconciliation. We actually support many of the amendments in Bill S-6, which clearly came from the collaborative five-year review. We do not support Bill S-6 unless the four problematic amendments introduced unilaterally by Canada are removed. In committee discussions on March 24, Mr. Ryan Leef stated that when he met with first nations directly, we stated that we supported “98% of the legislation”. We have never made such a statement.

Fact: contrary to the assertions of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, none of the four amendments was part of the original draft bill that Canada shared with the first nations in June 2013. We did not see these proposals until late February 2014. Canada and Yukon had many opportunities to raise the concepts of policy direction, delegation of powers and timelines, and exemptions for renewals and amendments during the collaborative five-year review, but they never raised the issues at all. When YESAA was developed, it was to replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in Yukon with a made-in-Yukon approach that addressed the treaty requirements. The objective of maintaining a distinct regime defined by our treaties must be paramount over any unilateral objective to harmonize across the north and throughout Canada.

Thank you for the opportunity for us to speak here today to correct some of the information and inaccuracies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Chief Fairclough.

Next we have the Teslin Tlingit Council.

Chief Sidney, you have the next seven minutes.

[Chief Carl Sidney, Chief, Teslin Tlingit Council]

On behalf of my elders, council, and people, I thank the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in and the Kwanlin Dün first nations for hosting this important meeting in their traditional territory.

[Witness spoke in Tlingit]

My name is Carl Sidney. I am the chief of Teslin Tlingit Council.

The Teslin Tlingit Council signed its final and self-government agreements with Canada and Yukon in 1993. We joined with other first nations in implementing our agreement starting in February 1995. We have recently celebrated 20 years of government-to-government relations guided by our agreements.

We thank the committee for coming north and providing us the opportunity to share our thoughts on Bill S-6. There are many written reports and documents filed with you by the Teslin Tlingit Council and other first nation governments. I am not repeating those details, but it is important for your committee to consider those submissions.

Let me bring you a personal and grassroots perspective. Our first nations people have long been stewards of land, air, and water. A respected Teslin Tlingit elder, Virginia Smarch, described first nations peoples as being part of the land and part of the water. In fact, we all are. It is this ancient belief that has formed the core of who we are as Tlingit people and defines our relationship with mother earth.

Industry and development come and go, but we are here forever and we carry that sacred responsibility. YESAA is connected to those beliefs and values through our agreements and should not be amended without our consent. We entered into the agreements as a way forward as an expression of who we are as people. An essential part of that vision was the recognition of and respect for our land, our water, and the air we breathe. They are a part of us and we are part of our environment for all time. It is our collective responsibility as a treaty party to ensure these unique relationships will be part of our future.

In 2005 I was one of the appointed founding members to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. Together the board spent much energy in the implementation of YESAA by involving the citizens of Yukon at every stage. It is this kind of cooperation among Yukoners led by an independent board comprised of Yukoners that was the way YESAA was put into effect and has worked perfectly well.

The amendments in Bill S-6 imposed by Canada at the last minute undermine what we have created together. It is critical to success that we continue to work together as was the vision under our agreements. Canada's stated intention in entering into final agreements was to create certainty about the use and ownership of Yukon land and natural resources. Substantial aboriginal rights, including title, were exchanged for constitutionally protected treaty rights. That was a high price to pay to achieve certainty for all Canadians and the Yukon first nations who have signed agreements and have paid it in full.

In the face of the violations of our final agreements through these amendments we must protect the spirit, letter, and intent of those agreements. The Yukon first nations and their citizens understand that they are a dynamic part of the Yukon society and economy. It was and is our vision to play a leading role in our collective Yukon future.

Together we represent directly and indirectly through our investments in excess of $1 billion in value, and annual revenues in excess of $300 million. We are definitely involved and concerned with Yukon's future and its economy.

Local and global investors are already diverting investments away from Yukon due to uncertainty of litigation and the questionable law and policy decisions of Canada and Yukon. A range of legal options will be open to first nations if these amendments are passed as proposed. Litigation will take place over a number of years undermining Yukon's economy as Yukon is seen as too risky and too uncertain.

We anticipate that individual projects and proponents will be challenged when the projects are being assessed inadequately. Industry and other investors will be bystanders waiting for the results of legal disputes to be worked out in the courts that the governments of Canada and Yukon have invited.

We are aware of and share in the risks and uncertainty of resorting to courts. However, the breaches of the current Conservative government in Ottawa, supported by the Yukon Party government in Yukon, are so severe we fear that we will have no other option.

We and other Yukon first nations need to continue to strive for respectful, effective relationships with industries throughout Yukon, and encourage sustainable development and positive growth for our citizens and all Yukoners, but to achieve our vision and respect our beliefs and values, we must ensure that our agreements are fully understood and recognized.

Teslin Tlingit Council urges this committee to take the steps available to it to recommend removal of the offending amendments. We further call upon all members of Parliament to take the steps available to avoid this increase in uncertainty and related harm to Yukon and to Canada's economy. Teslin Tlingit Council remains willing and available to work with Canada's representative to prepare improvements to the YESAA.

In accordance with the process settled in our final agreements, we call on you, as representatives of the crown, to act honourably as the law and our treaties require.

Gunalchéesh.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Chief Sidney.

From the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation we have Chief Joseph for the next seven minutes.

[Chief Roberta Joseph, Chief, Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation]

First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for coming here to Yukon.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Kwanlin Dün and Ta'an first nations for allowing us to be here in speaking to this monumental event.

I'm Roberta Joseph, chief of the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in in Dawson City. I want to talk to the committee about the process Canada, Yukon, and first nations used to develop YESAA and how that differs from the Bill S-6 process.

I want you to understand that things were done differently in the past and they can be done differently now. Not only that, they must be, in order to honour our treaties.

In 1998 Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in signed a modern land claim agreement after over 25 years of negotiations. The crown got what it wanted: clear title to over 95% of our traditional territory. Why would the TH sign an agreement where we kept less than 5% of our traditional territory as settlement land? We relied on processes like YESAA and land use planning to guarantee participation in planning and management on non-settlement land, where we exercise our rights to hunt, fish, and gather.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized these processes as key features of our final agreement. In the Little Salmon/Carmacks case, Justice Binnie noted that first nations got “a quantum of settlement land...access to Crown lands, fish and wildlife harvesting, heritage resources, financial compensation, and participation in the management of public resources.”

Participation in the management of public resources is critical. YESAA was central to the final agreement bargain, and so was being involved in its development.

Section 12.3.2 of the final agreement directed the CYFN, Canada, and Yukon to negotiate guidelines for drafting YESAA. Because the development assessment process is so important, Yukon first nations, Canada, and Yukon went beyond section 12.3.2. The parties established a tripartite working group to develop YESAA and its regulations. We worked collaboratively with Canada and Yukon throughout YESAA's development, right up to its approval in Parliament. Canada found ways to support collaboration instead of putting up roadblocks to working together.

Collaboration continued after YESAA came into force in 2005. Section 12.19.3 directed the UFA parties to review YESAA after five years. Once again, Yukon first nations were actively involved. Some of the Bill S-6 amendments are reforms that we worked on during that five-year review.

We are here today because that respect for our final agreement process is gone. The original YESAA was developed collaboratively over several years. The amendments from the five-year review were negotiated, but when Canada introduced four surprise amendments at the last minute, there was no negotiation at all. Canada acted unilaterally.

To be clear, collaboration between three orders of government was good enough when we created YESAA. Government-to-government negotiation was good enough during the five-year review as well. We didn't agree on everything, but we followed the final agreement instructions and came up with reforms that we could all live with. Most of those did not require changes to YESAA but have already been implemented through administrative actions and changes.

For the few recommendations that required amendments to YESAA, we expected Canada to respect its constitutional duties and treaty requirements to collaborate with us in accordance with chapter 12. Instead, Canada unilaterally tacked on four substantive amendments: delegation, policy direction, timelines, and renewals. Canada ignored its constitutional duties and the collaborative practices imposed by the treaties in section 12.3.2.

Another section, 12.3.3, provided a default in case the parties couldn't agree on drafting guidelines. Under section 12.3.3, Canada can go ahead with drafting, but it has to consult with Yukon first nations during the drafting. In TH's opinion, consultation under 12.3.3 is the second-best option. We would rather participate in instructing the drafters, but we at least have a final right to proper consultation while the drafting is still going on. Of course, the crown has a constitutional duty to consult with TH and where appropriate, accommodate our concerns when it amends YESAA.

Consultation didn't happen. Instead Canada took the third option, surprising us with amendments and an already drafted bill stamped as secret. They wouldn't let us take copies out of the meeting room, and if we weren't at the meeting in person, Canada never provided us with a single copy.

That's not participation under section 12.3.2. It's not consultation under section 12.3.3. It's just forcing it down our throats. It violates our final agreements and is illegal under the common law.

Many Yukon officials have stood in front of this committee and talked about the thousands of hours of consultation that went into Bill S-6. Do not be misled.

It's true: we spent years participating in the five-year review with federal and territorial officials.

These amendments never should have been included in Bill S-6. We join other witnesses who are urging you to strip those changes out. We are not in support of the Yukon member of Parliament on Bill S-6 and would like to see this matter tabled in the House.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Chief Joseph.

We'll now move to the White River First Nation, Chief Demit, for the next seven minutes.

[Chief Angela Demit, Chief, White River First Nation]

[Witness speaks in Northern Tutchone language ]

I am Chief Angela Demit of White River First Nation.

Mahsì t'sin’ii to Kwanlin Dün and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in first nations for our coming to their traditional territory.

Mahsì for the opportunity to present our views about Bill S-6 to the standing committee.

White River First Nation is a Yukon first nation that does not have a final land claim agreement. We are therefore one of the first nations who have never extinguished our aboriginal rights and title to our lands and waters. We participated in meetings with Canada about the changes to YESAA. Through that experience we have understood that the changes being proposed by Canada have much more to do with an agenda made in Ottawa than with the recommendations that came out of the YESAA five-year review process.

The process was agreed to by all parties to the UFA, including Canada. All Yukon first nations, including White River First Nation, invested in the review process and agreed upon a number of recommendations to improve the development and assessment process under YESAA. The recommendations were based on our experience of the YESAA process in Yukon in its first five years.

The changes to YESAA now proposed by Canada came from outside the five-year review. I hope you will listen carefully to our concerns.

I will start by saying that there are a number of amendments that White River First Nation wanted to see, but which Canada chose not to act on and which are not present in Bill S-6. The most important of these for White River First Nation is the definition in YESAA of “territory”, which for our nation is defined as the border boundary outlined in the UFA.

Our traditional territory goes beyond the UFA boundary, and as a result, large areas of our traditional territory are excluded from the consultation process under the YESAA. The UFA was never intended to be a binding document, and we do not agree that the map in the UFA represents our territory.

We have made our concerns known for many years and we are disappointed that Canada did not take this opportunity to remedy the situation. It is important to us to make it clear on the record that White River First Nation continues to strongly object to the definition of “territory” in YESAA.

Like many other Yukon first nations who are speaking to you today, we feel that there are four amendments of particular concern which are a profound intrusion of the federal and territorial governments into the YESAA process. A core value of the YESAA process is that it is a process that is at arm's length from government. As a Yukon first nation, we can only have confidence in the process when we believe it is independent.

The first is that Canada is proposing that the federal minister can give written policy direction to the YESAA board regarding any of the board's powers, duties, and functions under YESAA, and the board must abide by them. In our view, this power will completely undermine the board's ability to run an independent process free of political interference from the minister. It will also undermine the predictability of the process for all parties.

The second amendment that concerns us would allow the minister to delegate any of his powers, duties, and functions under YESAA to the territorial minister. The federal minister has many powers under YESAA, for example, the power to change the number of assessment districts, to approve the budget for the board, and approve of or reject time extensions for assessments. Giving these powers to the territorial minister makes the YESAA process extremely vulnerable to local political pressure. White River First Nation strongly objects to this.

The third amendment we urge you to reject is the imposition of timelines for YESAA assessments. The board currently administers rules for timelines which are appropriate to the YESAA process and to the specific circumstances of the Yukon. We see this proposal as a heavy-handed imposition of Canada's development objectives on the Yukon.

The fourth amendment that we do not wish to see brought into law would give discretion to the government decision-makers, most likely a territorial official, to allow a company to avoid a YESAA assessment in the case of a project amendment and permit renewal. This would create a great deal of uncertainty for White River First Nation when participating in a project assessment process. If a project can be changed or extended beyond the original proposal, we will not know all of the potential impacts when the project is finally assessed. This poses a serious threat to the protection of our aboriginal rights and is unacceptable to us.

I urge you to respond to our concerns and recommendations so that the amendments do not become law. I further urge you to recommend that this government scrap Bill S-6 and continue to consult with the first nations of Yukon to achieve a proposal that all parties can support. This is what reconciliation is all about.

In closing, White River First Nation is a Yukon first nation which has never extinguished aboriginal rights and title to our traditional waters and lands. The YESAA five-year review includes recommendation 58. This recommendation recognizes the needs for all parties to deal with issues specific to Yukon first nations without final agreements. White River First Nation has many outstanding and unique issues in the application of YESAA, as we are a first nation which did not enter into final agreements under the UFA.

Mahsi cho,T'sin'ii for being able to provide our presentation today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Chief Demit.

We'll now move to questioning from the members.

As we did in the previous panel, I think we'll allow four minutes for each member.

Our first member will be Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you to all the first nations here, and Grand Chief Massie.

I've had opportunities to discuss these issues with you in the past. Some of the things you've brought up today, Chief Demit, I'd certainly like to understand better: the amendment that you see is not in the bill, the definition of “territory”, and whether we'll see a copy of the proposed amendment that we can bring forward....

Also, I'd like to understand a bit about the level of support from the other participants. Was the Yukon territorial government against this amendment? Was it fully supported by all of the first nations?

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

I think it was a statement rather than an amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

It was indicated that this was one item that had come up in the five-year review that was not accepted by the Government of Canada.

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

Out of the 76 amendments, there were 72, but when it came to addressing this one, it was a statement. I don't think it came across as one of the amendments.

I believe there were four amendments outstanding at the end of that five-year review, which took about five years to begin with, maybe even longer.

[Janet Vander Meer, Lands Coordinator, White River First Nation]

Hello. I'm Janet Vander Meer of White River First Nation.

That is an issue that is active right now, the definition of our traditional territory. We see it very differently from the definition under the UFA and as recognized in the YESAA. That's something we're working on with the other first nations, the territorial government, and the federal government.

We want it to be very clear in our presentation that this is an outstanding issue. It's not an issue that's going to go away and it's an issue that needs to be dealt with. If there are amendments to the act and the traditional territory is not accepted, in the view of White River First Nation, how do you implement the act? We just want to be very clear about this and put it on the table today.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

The performance of this government has been not to have a lot of amendments, and looking forward, this bill will likely pass as is. I'm really hoping we can do something with it, but if it's passed, what's the potential for litigation and how can we avoid this?

[Tom Cove, Director, Department of Lands and Resources, Teslin Tlingit Council]

If I may, if the bill passes as is, the potential for litigation is a virtual, absolute certainty and is a great concern to Teslin Tlingit Council, other first nations, and a lot of Yukoners, and to investors outside the Yukon who have an interest in investing further in natural resource development, but in many other ways as well. It's of great concern and it is a virtual certainty. I'm not exactly sure, but the last time I looked I think there are five law firms already hired to prepare the work that's necessary in anticipation of this bill going forward. That's a lot of momentum in that direction.

In a moment, I'd like to call on Teslin Tlingit Council's law firm, represented by Leigh Anne Baker, to give everybody an understanding of how this is likely to roll out in a most candid way. I think Yukoners need to know. We know there's an audience out there today. Canadians need to know the level of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Unfortunately, Mr. Cove, I have to stop you there. We are at the expired time for the member's questions.

We'll now move to Mr. Leef.