Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2019

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Right.

Do you see the ability for the federal government to put in more moratoriums across northern Canada as a good thing or a bad thing?

[Merven Gruben]

More moratoriums are obviously bad.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Would you see the powers that are being put in place by this bill as a threat to your area?

[Merven Gruben]

It's a lot better to work together with the rest of our colleagues and partners, people up and down the Mackenzie Valley and the NWT.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

You still have two minutes.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

That's a little bit much to cede there and give back to the Liberals.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Mr. Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here before us today in various technological ways. It's good to have you here.

I have been up north. Many years ago I spent a couple of wonderful summers in the Gwich'in territory in Yukon, in Old Crow, but also over in the Northwest Territories and the Inuvialuit territory on Herschel Island, mainly, and in Inuvik. I didn't make it to Tuk because there wasn't a road there at the time, but there was oil and gas—

[Merven Gruben]

You were supposed to fly. You haven't been north, then.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Herschel is almost.... You're in the sea, anyway

There was oil and gas work being done in those days. I wanted to start by asking Mr. Wright a question about the first part of Bill C-88 that you're willing to talk about today. I think you expressed some concern. Because this bill was being rushed through at the end of Parliament there were some concerns about whether it would make it through to royal assent before Parliament rises. I'm wondering if you could expand on that, the “what if” question.

What if this bill doesn't pass? How would that affect the Gwich'in?

[David V. Wright]

Thanks for the question.

I'd say it affects the Gwich'in on two levels. First of all, there would be, we presume, although I do leave it to the Tlicho to explain in more detail this afternoon, a resumption of the litigation, and the toxicity and acrimony that comes with that, and that adverse effect on the Crown and indigenous relations in the NWT.

What's more, though, is that you would again have these amendments on paper, but not yet in force, that depend on how the rest of the litigation proceeds, which would prolong the regulatory uncertainty as to what the architecture of the project assessment, the project review regime would be like. As everyone knows, there are plenty of barriers to project development across the Northwest Territories, but certainly having the fundamental architecture of the regime in limbo is not helpful. That would be one needlessly prolonged barrier that could inhibit development in the Gwich'in settlement area.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Could you remind me what the injunction says about the timelines on that?

[David V. Wright]

The injunction says the Tlicho, in particular, because they were the primary litigant in that case, would suffer irreparable harm if those amendments were brought into force, because what it would mean is that the Tlicho, Sahtu and Gwich'in land and water boards would be dismantled. Picture staff being sent packing, corporate memory and resources and capacity being disbanded, and the single Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board being created.

The irreparable harm is at that institutional bureaucratic capacity level, and it would take a lot to get that engine going again if the court result was ultimately favourable and was in line with the findings of Justice Shaner, I believe, in the injunction case.

In other words, depending on what level of court this stopped at, if the result was, yes, indeed, this is an unconstitutional set of amendments that go against land claim agreements, then you would have to restart these boards years from now, which would just be lost time and waste and uncertainty.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Grand Chief Norwegian, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the Dehcho. Perhaps you could expand on how the Dehcho were consulted about Bill C-88, this piece of legislation, and whether it was adequate.

[Grand Chief Gladys Norwegian]

I just want to let you know that I'm fairly new. Somebody said to me, you cannot continue to use that excuse, but I'm fairly new to my position. I will have to say that I cannot answer that question. I actually really don't know.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Gruben, could you expand on your thoughts around the duty to consult? I know that's one of your major issues here with the moratorium specifically, but also perhaps this bill. As far as I know, there are no specifics around putting the duty to consult in this bill. I assume that it's all coming from the Constitution, instead of being put right into Bill C-88.

Do you have any comments on what you feel about that? Should the duty to consult and the ability for indigenous peoples and northern communities to interact with the government on that level be in this bill?

[Merven Gruben]

We're not really into the politics of everything, but with everything changing in a few years with the self-government thing, in the hamlet we'll be looking after most things, rather than the community corporations and stuff. We wanted to be a part of it. What affects your decision? It affects our community's life and the region's life, so we want to be part of the decision.

Like I said, I had a good talk with the premier. He is speaking at noon here and he's speaking about what you're asking, so maybe you can ask him about that. We're not that much into territorial politics. We're really not political, other than our hamlet stuff. We don't like to step on some things here. That's the life of our community, really. What your decisions are down here, on the moratorium and stuff, we have to be careful with it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Have you been involved in the discussions, now that we have the moratorium that was supposed to give a five-year period to do a scientific review and other consultations? Have you been involved with that at all?

[Merven Gruben]

Not at all. We haven't heard anything back. I think I was the only one who was vocally supportive of Premier Bob McLeod's discussions, from up in our part of the Arctic.

No, I haven't heard anything about the moratorium or what's happening up there. There's no feedback that's been given back to us about what's going on, other than what we see right now with increasing welfare recipients. It shows in the community.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Right.

Do you see it as problematic that we have essentially two bills that have been tied together here? The one is involving the Mackenzie Valley and fixing that problem that flowed from a legal injunction, and the other is with this moratorium. You have the premier strongly in favour of the first part at least, since it has to fix some major problem, whereas the second one was tacked on there.

[Merven Gruben]

I'll leave that to the premier.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

I guess that's the short answer.

Thank you.

For people who will need interpretation, the next round is going to go to MP Yves Robillard.

You have seven minutes.