AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 25, 1997

• 1541

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): Good afternoon everyone. We are continuing our study of Bill C-6, an Act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We welcome this afternoon via videoconference from Yellowknife, on behalf of the Deline Land Corporation, Danny Gaudet, negotiator for the Deline Self Government and Raymond Tutcho.

[English]

chief of the Deline Band and president of Deline Land Corporation.

[Translation]

Yes, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): On a point of order, I wonder if it might be possible, with the agreement of other members of the committee, to change the order of questioning slightly. We on this side, because usually there are quite a number of us, wait for a very long period before our turn comes up, but on the opposite side the round goes to individuals very frequently. I wondered if, with the agreement of the others, when we go from this side to the opposition side, we could go member by member, député by député. So if someone on this side questions, then it will be someone on the opposition side, then someone on the government side, then someone on the opposition side—just so we won't find, as has been happening, that we on the government side are waiting perhaps 20 minutes or so before we get an opportunity to ask questions.

Is that agreeable to the members opposite?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): The formula we were using was perfect and I see no reason to change it. The opposition must be recognized first. They are the ones who ask constructive questions.

The Chairman: Are you saying that we should allot 10 minutes to the Reform Party, Mr. Bryden?

Mr. John Bryden: I don't know. It's appropriate for the opposition to ask the first question, but I would like government members to ask the second question and perhaps even the fourth and sixth questions. As things now stand, we have to wait too long before we can ask our first question.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Just for the benefit of the members opposite, neither of whom were here this morning, we had the somewhat anomalous situation of one opposition member who asked every other question. We then had two. So it went one, two, one on this side, that round was over, one, two, one on that side, that round was over... There were six of us here.

My colleague is making the point that we're all interested in the work of this committee and in the topics.

Four questions for Mr. Konrad is fine, except I get only one or Judi gets one. It just seems inappropriate, that's all.

• 1545

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe just to allay your fears, Mr. Bryden, I have very limited questions to ask this afternoon, and the chair has to exercise some discretion, but I would point out that the committee did agree to a formal sequence of questions at the beginning when the committee was struck. I would like to see us hold to that.

We understand the chair will exercise some discretion, particularly when there's only one opposition MP present. Your point is not lost. But I would point out that we do have a convention, we do have a set, and I don't want to see that, which was an agreement we had, in the long run broken. But given the circumstances today, I think it's not unreasonable for you to expect that you will... And I can assure you from my point of view that I have very limited questions to ask. I only intend to be here for a very few minutes because I have somewhere else to go anyway.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I understand everyone's preoccupation. I think it's fine. We're all here to ask questions for the benefit of this committee.

First of all, there was already a meeting of the standing committee. We agreed on a certain formula. My colleagues said that we agreed to 50%. I don't recall what the percentage was, but I think it all depends on the discretion of the chair. I fully agree with Mr. Scott on the fact that if there is a full house of the opposition members, and there are two members from the Reform, two from the Bloc and the PC and NDP at that time, it goes one, one, one, and it could come to one or two. It depends on the length of time of the question. It's all a question of discretion, to give a chance to everyone to ask at least one question when we have witnesses. But, like today, if there are just two on the other side and we're four here, it's going to go much faster.

I think I'll leave it to the discretion of the chair, and if it doesn't work, we'll come back to the standing committee to try to find another solution or to ratify the same solution.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

I have a suggestion. I discussed this with Christine and we could start today by allotting 10 minutes to the Reform Party, then 10 minutes to the Bloc Québécois and then 10 minutes to the Liberal Party. We would then come back to the Reform Party for five minutes, to the Liberal Party for five minutes, to the Bloc Québécois for five minutes, to the Liberal Party for five minutes and so on. Each time an opposition party speak, the Liberal Party would have five minutes.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the problem you've described. By giving two ten-minute blocks to the opposition and only one ten-minute block to the government side, we have just as many MPs on this side as there are sitting on the opposite side. The difficulty there is when you give blocks of time by opposition party you make any of us on this side wait a very long time. And it's often been the case where we haven't been able to speak at all.

So all I was suggesting was that we alternate from this side of the table, however long you want, to that side of the table, because we are six or seven on this side to six or seven on the opposite side normally, and that's where the problem is.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, when you're talking about using discretion of the chair, is that for today, or is that forever after? I don't have a problem with the chair exercising discretion in the present circumstances, given that we don't have a full committee. And the reason we agreed to the formula we did is that on days and cases where we do have a full committee, everybody gets a fair opportunity to ask questions. I don't have a problem with the chair exercising discretion in cases where we don't have a full committee.

I think the idea was not to thwart government members from asking questions, and I certainly don't intend to do that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, in a democracy, it's normal for the opposition to ask many questions. The government party makes the laws and we are the ones who call these decisions into question. That's a normal process in a democracy. The opposition must ask more questions. As the word implies, we are there to oppose. It's a constructive process recognized in our system of government. We ask constructive questions to improve draft legislation.

• 1550

Perhaps you'll tell me that it's different in committee, but since there are several parties represented, if questions come back and forth across the table, the process will not be a balanced one. My party is entitled to the same amount of time as the Reform Party and the government.

Mr. Bernard Patry: In response to my Bloc Québécois colleague, of course the opposition must take opposing action, but it's important to remember that when we are in committee, the role of all committee members, whether they are in opposition or in government, is to amend draft legislation to make it as good as possible when it goes back to the House of Commons.

That is our objective. We'll try and find a formula. Today, there are only two opposition members present and there are only four of us. In this case, the chairman can exercise a certain amount of discretion provided he does not violate the rights of the members present. The important thing in all of this is that each member from the government side also has an opportunity to ask questions. If we don't have this opportunity, we can expect to lose some players along the way.

Let's begin, Mr. Chairman. Our witnesses are waiting.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: We can discuss it later, but I do not want to keep our witnesses waiting. They have been very patient there, and I thank them very much. We have to resolve these things in order to do our work efficiently.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Gaudet. Do you have an opening statement? Would you care to introduce your associate?

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet (Negotiator, Deline Self Government): Good afternoon, Vice-Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. On behalf of the community of Deline we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation today.

I have here with me Chief Raymond Tutcho, who is president of the land corporation. I work as chief negotiator for the community of Deline.

These negotiations, which got under way officially in January 1997, are being undertaken pursuant to appendix B of the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Claim Agreement and the federal government's inherent right policy.

It should be noted that Deline is the only Sahtu community involved in self-government negotiations pursuant to appendix B of our claim. There are four other communities in the Sahtu region: Tulita, formerly known as Fort Norman; Norman Wells; Fort Good Hope; and Colville Lake. In all, four bands and three Métis locals are signatories to the Sahtu land claim. Deline is also the only western NWT aboriginal community on its own to be at a self-government negotiating table. All other self-government negotiations in the western NWT to date are being undertaken on either a regional or a tribal basis.

The purpose of our presentation today is to bring to the committee's attention the support we give to Bill C-6 in its current form and to draw your attention to the main condition we place on that support. Before we address this matter, we would like first to set the stage for the standing committee with a bit of background on who we are and where we live and some modern political history of Deline.

The community of Deline, renamed “Deline” from “Fort Franklin” on April 1, 1993, is located 544 air kilometres from Yellowknife on the shore of Keith Arm on the southwest side of Great Bear Lake, about 10 kilometres from the head of the Great Bear River, which flows into the Mackenzie River. Great Bear Lake is the largest lake contained within the boundaries of Canada and the ninth-largest lake in the world.

• 1555

The community of Deline is home to approximately 600 people, of whom most are Sahtu Dene. Our ancestors are a mix of interrelated Athapaskan-speaking groups, representatives of Dogrib, Mountain, Hare, Slavey and occasionally Yellowknife and Gwich'in-speaking people, who hunted the drainages that flow into Great Bear Lake. The name “Sahtu Dene” refers to the entire group historically centred around Great Bear Lake. This is a term derived from the Slavey words meaning “bear, water, people”.

The modern-day residents of Deline are descendants of nomadic people who hunted throughout the region surrounding Great Bear Lake for the past 8,000 to 10,000 years. The seasonal cycle of people and animals was closely tied to the annual climatic rhythm. The brief summer months of July and August, with long hours of warm sunlight, found families camping around the shores, fishing or picking berries.

As the caribou began their autumn migration westward from the Barren Lands along the north and south shores of Great Bear Lake, the Sahtu Dene would lie in wait at the known crossing places such as the Dease and Haldene Rivers for the caribou, whose skins were best at this time. Snowfall began late in September, and increasing in October, it allowed the Sahtu Dene to use their sleds to follow the fattened caribou westward. By November all the small lakes were frozen—even Great Bear Lake was frozen—allowing caribou to cross directly from Caribou Point to the Scented Grass Hill.

This was the time when fishing was at its best in the large bays, especially in the Keith and MacVicar Arms. In December little caribou was hunted because of the low temperatures and few daylight hours. Families camped around the smaller inland lakes or moved to near the Bear River entrance, which remained open all year round, making it possible to spear herring from the ice edge.

January, usually the coldest month, often had temperatures of minus 35 to minus 40 degrees, lasting for several weeks. By March and April temperatures improved and it became possible to snare caribou as they roamed eastward through the woods. As the daily temperatures rose above freezing point, small lakes thawed, and with the beginning of break-up in May the open water along the edges of Great Bear Lake permitted canoes to be used again.

In the sheltered wooded area, temperatures soon rose in the long sunny days, but along the ice-bound lake shores, especially the Keith Arm, into which the east wind pushed, the ice temperatures remained low until late July, when the ice finally melted from the bays and both the fish and mosquitoes would return. We didn't look forward to mosquitoes, but they used to come back every year.

While we continue to have a strong attachment to the land, the community now has a modern political system in place, along with most of the modern-day infrastructure and communication systems that one would find in similar small communities in southern Canada.

Some highlights of recent political changes in the community of Deline began with Treaty 11 of 1921, which requested that the Indians

name certain Chiefs and Headmen...to become responsible to His Majesty for the faithful performance by their respective bands of such obligations as shall be assumed by them.

In 1956, 35 years after the signing of Treaty 11, Fort Franklin appeared separately from Fort Norman on the band registry list. In 1974, by way of order in council, Fort Franklin was reaffirmed a band under the powers of the Privy Council pursuant to the Indian Act.

Deline was established as a hamlet in 1972 under the Revised Statues of the Northwest Territories (1965), and continued as a hamlet and a municipal corporation under the Hamlets Act. On April 1, 1992, under the Charter Communities Act, pursuant to a community charter approved by voters of Deline and on the recommendation of the executive council of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, the status of the municipal corporation was changed with the establishment, by order of the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, of the charter community of Deline.

• 1600

The community of Deline thereby became the first community in the Northwest Territories to establish itself as a charter community. The idea behind the charter community was to move toward re-establishing one community government for the community. The basic organizational structure of the charter community of Deline is dictated by legislation in the Charter Communities Act, under which it and the community charter operate.

The charter community is a municipal corporation. Therefore, it has certain responsibilities to voters and the residents of the community. The community leader is the Ehkw'ahtide, who is the chief of the band and the mayor for the purposes of the Charter Communities Act. The Ehkw'ahtide is the presiding member of the Deline council, and has the responsibility of running and maintaining order at council meetings.

As the senior executive officer of the municipal operation, the Ehkw'ahtide is responsible for keeping council informed and making recommendations to the council in the public interest. The Ehkw'ahtide is also responsible for giving direction to officers of the municipal corporation. As the chief of the band, the Ehkw'ahtide also has has responsibilities with regards to matters concerning band members.

On August 2, 1996, the community of Deline submitted a proposal requesting that Canada enter into negotiations with the community of Deline for the purpose of concluding a self-government agreement. This initiative follows the settlement of the Sahtu Dene and Métis land claims agreement of September 1993.

Deline's self-government model envisions a community and district government possessing four different types of law-making authority.

One, law-making powers and authority should be exclusive to the first nation government to govern the operations of the Deline First Nation and to manage their rights and benefits that are realized pursuant to the final agreement by persons enrolled under the final agreement and that are to be under the jurisdiction of the first nation government.

Two, there should be the power to make laws that extend throughout the Northwest Territories but are limited to Deline Dene and Métis citizens.

Three, there should be the power to make laws of a local and private nature applying to Deline Dene and Métis citizens and to non-Deline Dene Métis citizen.

Four, there should be emergency jurisdiction over persons or territory in self-government agreements.

There's conditional support in Deline for Bill C-6. Let me begin by saying that when we signed the Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive claim, we signed a real estate and cash deal. The reason for this land and cash only was that the federal government's comprehensive land claims policy at the time did not allow political rights to be negotiated at the real estate and cash compensation table.

Fortunately, the federal government has seen the light, and a two-table approach has been replaced with a one-table approach with the Dogrib negotiations. Those of the Dogrib nation are negotiating their political rights and land and cash compensation at the same table. This makes a lot of practical sense. This, probably more than any other reason, is why we're having difficulties at our self-government negotiation tables.

Let us be very clear a Sahtu land claim agreement does not grant Sahtu Dene and Métis institutions self-government powers. This was to be left to future self-government negotiations. However, as we are now discovering at our self-government negotiation tables that the federal government's position now seems to be the Sahtu and Dene Métis have already negotiated their political rights over land and resources and these rights are spelled out in the land claims agreement and the MVRMA.

• 1605

In short, government is saying that we must accept the public resource management boards in place of self-government powers over our settlement lands. This is unacceptable.

We do believe, however, that this problem can be fixed and the standing committee can play a major role in this regard. Before we suggest how this might be done, let me first provide the committee with some basic information with respect to what our land claim does not give us by way of self-government powers over lands and resources.

Item 1: The fee simple title that the Deline Land Corporation has to 5,208.4 square miles of district land without minerals and 158 square miles of subsurface rights does not give us exclusive control or authority over these lands, for it is subject to access rights, the jurisdiction of management boards and the federal and territorial laws.

Item 2: Guaranteed participation in public management bodies gives Sahtu and Dene-Métis a small degree of control over their land, water and resources used throughout the settlement area, but even on our selected lands this is subject to ministerial decision and to laws of general application.

Item 3: Sahtu and Dene-Métis organizations are not given any exclusive or shared regulatory or legislative authority over lands and resources on their selected lands.

Item 4: No mention is made of Sahtu and Dene-Métis self-government institutions or of how they would fit within the framework of rights, powers and institutions defined in the claims settlement.

To take two crucial examples, it is unclear how the achievement of the Sahtu and Dene-Métis self-government will affect provisions relating to laws of general application and to jurisdiction of public management boards.

While we support the bill in its current form, we would like to draw your attention to the main condition that we place on that support.

Subclause 5(2) of the bill is a non-derogation provision in favour of existing aboriginal and treaty rights. One of those existing aboriginal rights as recognized by the current government is the inherent right to self-government.

This was a major issue during the negotiations that resulted in the Sahtu and Dene-Métis comprehensive land claim agreement. The issue was so important that the following provision was included in that comprehensive land claim agreement:

3.1.14 Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to affect:

(a) any aboriginal or treaty right to self-government which the Sahtu Dene and Métis may have.

In addition to the foregoing provision, there are also chapter 5 and appendix B, which in our view, as a result of the inclusion of 3.1.14(a), set the minimum requirements for self-government agreements with the Sahtu Dene and Métis.

Appendix B specifically includes in the list of matters to be negotiated the following:

4.1(d) use, management, administration, control and the protection of settlement lands;

Because the comprehensive claim agreement requires, as does the bill, that the existing inherent right to be self-governing be fulfilled, respected, we view the regime that will be created when the bill passes to be interim in nature—interim until we will have completed our self-government negotiations. At that time the self-government agreement will replace any of the provisions of the bill as they apply to the Deline district.

• 1610

Although we have been trying for some time to get our self-government negotiations started, we are having difficulty completing the first step, which is a process and schedule agreement. These difficulties flow from two sources. The first is the general attitude of employees of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, as well as the Department of Justice, that they must put the narrowest possible interpretation on treaties, the comprehensive claim, and any other documents that require them to deal with aboriginal people. We understand that lawyers call this “black letter law”. This approach is contrary to the “spirit and intent” philosophy that should be governing relationships between our government and ourselves.

The second root of our difficulty lies in the existing inherent right policy. When we first saw the policy we thought, well, this is not bad; we can work with this. Then we came to the end of the policy and found none of it applied to us as we live in the Northwest Territories.

As a condition of our support for this bill, we ask you to do three things: recognize that the bill will create an interim regime that will be replaced eventually as self-government agreements are completed; request the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Minister of Justice to take more of a liberal approach in their dealings with us at the self-government negotiating table; and last, request the Prime Minister to amend the inherent right policy by removing the limitations on aboriginal people who live in the western Northwest Territories.

Mahsi. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gaudet, for your presentation. Your comments will help the committee with its current and future business.

We will now go to questions. For today only, I will give Messrs. Fournier, Keddy and Bryden five minutes each, and then come back to Mr. Fournier, followed by Mr. Finlay and so on. Mr. Scott from the Reform Party had to leave owing to previous commitments. He apologizes for his absence, Mr. Gaudet.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you. Did you conduct your negotiations in accordance with the land claims agreement for your community? I would also like to know if your organization is currently taking part in the negotiations on self-government. Could you give us a brief overview of the status of the negotiations in these two areas?

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet: About our participating in negotiations for self-government, yes, we are currently in negotiations. We have been from January 1997 to this current date. We've been trying to complete the process and schedule agreement, which lays out the rules on what we are going to negotiate. We have been unable to complete that process and schedule agreement at this stage. We had scheduled to finish it this summer and we haven't been able to do so yet.

We negotiate the agreement just for the community of Deline and our surrounding district. It has nothing to do with other communities within the Sahtu.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I would also like to know if your organization is prepared to work with the various boards that will be set up under the agreement leading to Bill C-6. In your opinion, will the procedures established under Bill C-6 have an impact on the First Nations in the Mackenzie Valley living outside the designated Sahtu and Gwich'in regions?

• 1615

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet: With regard to its impact, I can only comment on my current experience with regard to the renewable resources board, which operates in a way similar to the land and water board we're proposing, the other boards we're proposing. I sit on it as a member of the Sahtu. When I was appointed, I was appointed by the SSI, the parent company that negotiated the agreement, on the recommendation of our community. I've been sitting on that board for six to seven months now. The first thing I was told when I got on there, thinking I represented our community, the aboriginal voice on this management regime, was that I represented everybody equally, not just the people who appointed me. I represented non-aboriginals and so on.

That was one of the main problems I had. I thought this regime was set up, established under the claim, to meet the aboriginal needs of the Sahtu. The first thing I find is that I'm not representing aboriginal people, but everybody the same.

I'm not sure if I answered your question fully.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: That's fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I thank you folks for appearing today, but I guess I'm a little confused, because our committee is hearing presentations on Bill C-6, and your presentation deals a lot with a land claim agreement that is not within our committee's jurisdiction. We're dealing with a totally different jurisdiction.

I appreciate the fact that you presented your case, and you've taken the venue to exercise that opportunity. I'm trying to separate the two and deal with what we're supposed to deal with here today.

Would you clarify for this committee what was the involvement of your organization in the land claim process of the Sahtu Dene?

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Our involvement with regard to the claim itself is that we've participated in negotiating a land claims agreement dealing with lands and a cash compensation. That was our understanding when we negotiated this agreement.

To try to simplify things for you, so that you're not confused, right now we're in the process of negotiating our political rights under the impression and under the understanding that we've never negotiated our political rights in the land claims agreements.

Right now we're having problems negotiating our agreement. For instance, the renewable resources board... If we wanted to establish a government that can pass some laws within our district that affect wildlife, the current governments, the federal government or the GNWT, have that jurisdiction right now. They have that authority to pass laws with regard to wildlife.

In some cases we think we should be able to pass at a community level laws that affect our district only. These management regimes should respect our law. As it stands right now, we're unable to deal with renewable resources because they're saying we've dealt with it in the claim. We've dealt with management of renewable resources. We have not dealt with the political rights of renewable resources to be able to pass certain laws.

What we think is going to happen is that we're going to have the same problems when we deal with these boards you're establishing. We agree that they have to be done, but we should have that ability in the future, once we've finished our self-government agreement, to be able to pass some laws with respect to water and land and these boards should respect those laws.

• 1620

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think we're getting into a question of jurisdiction. I'm just going to read your comments: “...does not give us exclusive control or authority over these lands, for it is subject to access rights, the jurisdiction of management boards, and federal and territorial laws”.

In the society in which we all live in this country, that seems to be the status quo wherever you go. Certainly everyone needs to have a seat at that table and some say in what's going on about the laws that govern. I don't think anyone has a difficulty with that. I'm not quite sure how far you're looking down the road in the self-government model.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Could you rephrase the question on exactly what you mean by how far we're going? Right now your policies limit us to what they want us to do. We're saying we want to go beyond those policies because they're too limiting, they're not open-minded.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You have some input into the process now. You may not make that final decision, but you have some input. You have a member who sits on the board and you will have a member sitting on the board who will have some input into the decisions made that will affect you.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Okay, I agree with you there. I understand we are going to participate in this process once the regime is set up. But has any thought been given to accommodating self-government agreements when they're in place? A regime is going to be established here. We will supposedly have the ability to govern ourselves and pass some laws. Will these management regimes we're establishing now through Bill C-6 and the renewable resources board respect the fact that there's a new government coming on the block, and will they recognize this new government?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gaudet.

Mr. Bryden, five minutes.

Mr. John Bryden: First of all, Mr. Gaudet, paragraph 35.(a) talks about the guiding principles of the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board. You don't need to look it up because I can read it for you. It says the purpose of the planning board, which includes all boards being set up by this bill, “is to protect and promote the social, cultural and economic well-being of residents and communities in the settlement area—”which could be your settlement area, “—having regard to the interests of all Canadians.”

Do you have any problem with that principle?

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I think it's well-intended. It serves our purpose. But it also has to have regard for the rest of Canadians, as it states there. We're a small population compared to the rest of Canada, so if you took all Canadian citizens into play in this particular picture, we would basically be overruled.

Mr. John Bryden: That may be, and I'll come to that. I'm an MP and I come from a town near Hamilton of about 10,000 people. Do you think when I come to Parliament in Ottawa I should act for their interests exclusively, or should I be in Parliament to act for all Canadians, even though I was sent by only one very small portion of Canada? What's my obligation? Is it to all of Canada or merely to the people who sent me here?

• 1625

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Obviously, your first priority is to the people who sent you there. Otherwise, you won't get sent back.

Mr. John Bryden: Then why should I be here considering the interests of Canadians in the Northwest Territories. If my interests are only my constituents, why should I care about you?

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Keep two things in mind. One, you're there considering what's happening here because you're in a position in which you can recommend that laws affecting us go ahead. Two, we're dealing with this aspect as a first nations group. We have certain rights, and we have certain protected rights. I think they're different when you start comparing them to the rest of Canada in terms of non-aboriginal people.

Mr. John Bryden: Surely, Mr. Gaudet, when you're appointed to any board anywhere in this country or any other country, you have a fiduciary responsibility—those are the big words that they use—to act in the interests of all people, not just the people who put you on the board. When you tell me you're on the resource management board and you disagree because it wants to do something that is in the broad public interest rather than the interest only of the people you represent, is that really the way you want to go? As I say, it would be hard to be a member of Parliament, doing what I'm doing right now, if I were to follow your lead on that.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Development in our area has destroyed a lot of things. At this stage we're looking at one development project that happened several years ago. We had no participation, we had no say. It was the almighty buck that talked, and this project went ahead no matter what was happening. It happened in our backyard, it happened over fifty years ago, and it's destroying us to this day.

Through self-government, having the ability to govern ourselves and to look after our backyard is what we're trying to achieve. We're not, as aboriginal people, interested in looking after the rest of Canada. We're looking after our own interest at home, so that we do have a home in the future.

Mr. John Bryden: I see where you're coming from, but I have to tell you that I have difficulty. If you are saying you should have exclusive control over access rights, the jurisdiction of management boards over the federal and territorial laws in your territory, that means you would have the right to deny me, another Canadian, the ability to set foot on your land, because you would control access. Surely the laws of Canada should apply in all the territory of Canada.

What you are proposing in this suggestion here is the exclusive jurisdiction that I believe the Bloc Québécois and the separatists want for Quebec, which is a separate country. Is that really what you want? Surely you would want to be a part of Canada. I realize there may have been problems in the past, but surely we can work together on this.

The Chairman: Last question, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: With the land we have selected, we have fee simple title to it. We own it outright. We should be able to pass laws with regard to that land, and allow who we want on it. Some farmers have more rights than we do with regard to their land. If you trespass on their land, I've always heard, you could be shot. A farmer has that much authority when compared to what we have with regard to our lands, which we own and have fee simple title to, but right now everybody has access to it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Toward the end of your presentation, you stated that you are prepared to support Bill C-6 only if three essential conditions are met. What steps can the committee take to satisfy these three conditions in order for you to support Bill C-6? It seems to me that these three conditions are principles. Do you hold to these conditions in principle?

• 1630

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet: As I indicated earlier to the committee, we have been having great difficulty at the negotiating tables. We haven't been able to pass the first step, and that is to negotiate a process schedule agreement.

What's happening is that there is a bunch of policies out there that are limiting us in terms of having this flexibility to negotiate an aboriginal government for our people. What we are saying to the committee is that you might not be able to help us, but we need this flexibility.

Changing the three points we have outlined as the condition to support this bill would help us and give us the flexibility we need to negotiate a self-government agreement that will be beneficial to us and, at the same time, will work with the current government systems so everybody will be happy.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: You talked about self-government. I was told that the First Nations in the southern region of the Mackenzie Valley were concerned that the bill could infringe upon the rights of aboriginal peoples and the principle of self-government. How do you respond to this?

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet: If the bill is passed in its present form, we are saying that we could live with that as a participant of the Sahtu claim, but we want people to know that we think it is an interim measure to carry us until we finish our self-government agreement.

Now, this self-government agreement may give us the ability to deal with land and water in terms of making laws with respect to those areas. We may not end up with it, but if we do there has to be a flexibility so the act can be changed to accommodate what we will have negotiated.

With regard to it affecting other regions, the Deh Cho and the South Slave should not be parties to this agreement, because it is, in a sense, being imposed on them. They are not—especially the Deh Cho are not in negotiations at all where they can see the light ahead and say this regime is okay, because we can make some changes and revisions when we are doing our self-government agreement or our land claims agreement. They are not even at that stage yet, to be able to feel confident that they can make some changes in the future.

We think we can make some changes, and we are hoping that we can do that through the self-government negotiations.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: My colleague opposite made a fleeting reference to Quebec and the Bloc when he mentioned sovereignty. I want him to know that a sovereign Quebec would continue to be a part of these agreements with your First Nations. A sovereign Quebec would be even more prepared to do so than the members elected to be part of the current system.

I'm very interested in the environmental component of Bill C-6. As you know, rivers can flow across provincial borders. If one province cleans up a river while the other province pollutes it, we're going to have a difficult time of it.

• 1635

That's why we talk about a sovereign and associated Quebec, about sovereignty-association. As far as the environmental component is concerned, you will certainly be expected to work with the other boards.

There is talk of a regime with three environmental assessment components. Ultimately, an impact assessment will be done. This is a very interesting process because it enables us to look outside a given region to other areas. Do you find the environmental regime proposed under Bill C-6 satisfactory? Does it go far enough in meeting the needs of your region?

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet: About development, I have a perception. It basically says that if the project is viable, it's going to create jobs, the project will happen. The environmental assessment that has to be done to accommodate this project will take place no matter what. At the end of the day after all the assessments are done, the project will happen. That's how Canada has operated and that's how they are going to continue to operate.

The Sahtu Dene, and a lot of aboriginal people right across Canada, see themselves as protectors of the land. Our involvement, our abilities to make laws on environmental issues and things like that, will give us the ability to protect that land, to make sure all these environmental assessments are done and so on.

At this stage right now the environmental reviews are done on government legislation, government policies. If the government wants a project to go ahead, it will go ahead.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I want to thank you, Mr. Gaudet and Chief Tutcho, for coming and speaking with us today. Like some of my colleagues, I was a little confused at the beginning. I think it's becoming a little clearer.

I agree with you that heretofore developments have tended to go ahead. I would remind you, however, that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline did not go ahead. I would let you know that the medical waste incinerator in my riding did not go ahead, because the people in the town I represent didn't want it. So I don't think you're quite up to date on it, and I think you're maybe lacking a little in understanding of what we're about and what this committee is trying to do.

You're not correct that a farmer will shoot you if you trespass on his lands. He might, but he would then be charged with a very serious crime. I know you wouldn't shoot me if I came to speak to you. I trust you would allow the same sort of access as is in vogue. When people want to trap or hunt on my land, which is only 6 kilometres from a town of 30,000, they ask my permission. I say yes, and they look after it. That's the way it's done.

You will know the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has had something to say about how we're going to proceed from here to respect, to recognize, to share with the aboriginal people, and to develop responsibility for them. One of the things the royal commission suggests is that to feel the Government of Canada can sit down and negotiate with 625 separate first nations, some as small as 80 people, some like your own of 600, is not, in the modern context, doable or desirable.

• 1640

It would seem to me that perhaps you are putting yourself and your 616 Deline members not with the other groupings in the Sahtu area, but separate. And I wonder whether it might not be politic and appropriate to say that you really are part of the area, and although you want to make some laws for your own land, and as you have said, I think, without concern for others, I think my colleague, Mr. Bryden, tried to point out that nobody in this country makes laws for their land without concern for others, not even farmers with fences and guns. They don't. It doesn't happen.

So I think we have to temper your desires to the situation you're in. I would like to know if you would give me an example. On page 5 you say that

Sahtu Dene and Métis organizations were not given any exclusive or shared regulatory or legislative authority over lands and resources on selected lands.

I'd like you to explain that to me, because I thought Bill C-6 did precisely that. And if it doesn't, then give me an example of some law you would like to make on your lands—and you have indicated to us what they were—that is going to be limited. What is it you'd like? What law would you like to make on your land that doesn't take into account what your neighbours or what the Gwich'in who get water that goes downstream from you or what the Dogrib who live south of you but farther back in the watershed might do to the land or the water that flows in the Great Bear Lake? I want an example of what you would—

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Okay. I'll try to give you the example you want.

With regard to development, the pipeline that you said was stopped is now pumping oil from Norman Wells to Zama. It's been built. It's in the ground. Development did go ahead on that.

With respect to giving you an example, in our claim we have the ability to identify an area as a park. And we identified that area as a park because we wanted to protect it. We believe it's an historical area for our people. We have gone through the process of putting in applications and negotiating with both governments on establishing this park. All it needs is signatures now. And suddenly your government doesn't want to sign it because we want to protect that area from future development. Your government says no, it should be open to resource development if there are any resources in that area.

Through our government—that's our district—we should have the ability to say this is going to be a park and it's not going to be open for development. In our minds that has nothing to do with our neighbours who are 90 miles away or with our Gwich'in counterparts up north or with the members of the Deh Cho in the south. It doesn't affect them.

And right now, we don't have that ability. We have to beg the governments to please establish this park that is identified in our claim. We identified it to protect it and we can't do that because the government says it has to have to have the ability to access resources if anything's ever found there. That's one example of several that could be out there.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Gaudet, that's a good example. We'll have to look into it.

• 1645

[Translation]

The Chairman: You have three minutes, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I see now where you're coming from. The message we're getting from your presentation would suggest that you're wanting a kind of an exclusive right to everything, purely in the interest of your group, without due regard for the interests of the groups around you, much less those in the rest of Canada.

I will say with respect to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois that when he spoke of sovereignty he described sovereignty as still being cooperation with the people around you.

What I see in your presentation and what caused me great concern was the demand or the request for exclusive control that really comes with independence, with separation from the federal powers. And really, even the farmer holds his property as a result of laws within his municipality, his province and then the federal government, so there's a chain all the way up.

However, if I understand correctly, your real sensitivity isn't resource development, it's the protection of areas that exist within your traditional lands, areas of interest that you don't want to see destroyed by development, if you will.

Would we be able to answer some of your concerns if there were some sort of provision in this kind of legislation and in other legislation—including your land claims legislation or whatever is going on there—for making the environmental option the choice of the first nation or whatever jurisdiction we're dealing with? That is, the provision would accord to the first nation the right of first refusal, shall we say, if it's a matter of protecting the environment as opposed to development. Would that help?

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I think that type of idea would be gladly accommodated, and I think people would applaud the government for doing something like that.

I just want to clarify something with regard to what type of government we're negotiating. We're not negotiating a government that's going to have exclusive powers over our whole district and have no regard for the rest of Canada. We have to live in Canada. Canada is a great country. We want to live in Canada. We want to be partners with the rest of Canada.

In our agreement, we're trying to have the ability to pass some laws that affect us in our district and not have to knock on government doors and say, “Can you pass this law for us because your legislation requires you to do that?” We should be able to pass some laws on our own without having to knock on government doors, but at the same time, when we do that the governments have to recognize our law.

And there are other areas where we'll have concurrent laws where we are a partner in managing something, where we are partners and we are both able to both pass laws on something. We would have concurrent laws.

And yes, there is an exclusive law. We want to have the ability to say, “In Deline, for all the laws with regard to our culture and our identity, we're the only government that can pass laws with regard to that kind of stuff.” We want to be able to say, “You guys, you territorial or federal governments, you can't pass any laws with regard to our culture.”

That's just an example of our government trying to work within a system or beside a system that exists there. We're not trying to have an isolated sovereign nation away in the arctic where we would have no regard for the rest of Canada. We agree that we have to live together, and we have to accommodate others who live in the community. And we have to set up our government so that we can accommodate others who come to our community.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

I really appreciate your explanation because I think now we're all on the same wavelength and I think all of us on this committee would be sympathetic to the concerns that you obviously came to this table with.

Looking exclusively at the act, can we go a few steps towards some of your concerns if we define at the front of the act—better than exists right now—the responsibilities of these boards in a broad sense? If we're creating these boards that are going to look after water and planning, and will perhaps eventually be a board that applies to your area, should we not be putting in this legislation a very clear description of what we expect of these boards, that they should be acting in a responsible fashion with respect to the environment, with respect to the culture of the settlement areas, and if you wouldn't mind also, always in the context of the benefit of all Canadians?

• 1650

I have to tell you that I feel very strongly that you are doing exactly what you are saying you are doing. You are the custodian of a beautiful part of this land, which I can rarely visit, but I hope that generations of Canadians will be able to visit it in all its beauty because you have been such excellent custodians of it.

So there's no doubt in my mind we have to give you certain powers, but can we help you by making the general principles in this act a little bit better defined than they are? I'm sorry, I'm very long-winded.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I can't speak for the other communities or the other regions, but with regard to our district, I think that would go quite far in saying yes, we have to recognize that these guys have a say in what's happening within that district in terms of development and things of that nature. We have to recognize that what they say is based on them living there, them growing up there. They know the area better than the people in Ottawa who have passed this legislation.

I think that will go far, but I'm suggesting, as we've been doing through our presentation here, that we're negotiating a self-government agreement, and all we're saying is that this act has to recognize the fact that there's a new government that's coming on the scene, whether it's ours or the Gwich'in or the Dogrib or the Deh Cho. How is this act going to work with this new government that's coming on?

Right now, all the jurisdiction and authority lies with the federal government. If it's not there, it's with our territorial government. But we're negotiating actually taking away some of these authorities and jurisdictions so that we can look after it ourselves. We're just saying if some of that gives us the ability to make laws with regard to some water or with regard to some land, how does this board recognize that? How does this regime work with this new law that's implemented by an aboriginal group?

Mr. John Bryden: We've had similar submissions, and I think the act certainly needs a change that indicates that it will apply to the new self-government agreement. But we can't do that, in my mind—and I'm only speaking personally—until we make very clear what the guiding principles are of the boards we are setting up, so that there can be no doubt.

It's not just a matter of an equal playing field; it's a matter that the boards are constituted in such a way that they take absolute interest in the cultural integrity and the self-will of the various regions, in the context of all of Canada. I think that is something we need to do, and I will be pressing my colleagues on the committee to examine that aspect of the bill. I hope we can satisfy some of your concerns.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I really appreciated that. All we're saying is that we're establishing a government that these acts are going to have to recognize in the future.

How do we do that? I have not seen where that has been addressed. If we can address that prior to the bill being passed and we set up some kind of mechanism where it recognizes it, we can continue our self-government negotiations and feel comfortable that these types of regimes are not going to restrict us to setting up a system we're not happy with.

Mr. John Bryden: We'll try our very best. Thank you very much.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: May I have your name, sir?

Mr. John Bryden: My name is John Bryden. I'm the member of Parliament for Wentworth—Burlington.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1655

Mr. Gaudet, I'm looking at the last page of your presentation. I think I can do my own investigation and find out what you're talking about when you speak about these difficulties in your coming up with a process and schedule agreement. The first is a general attitude, you say. Well, I won't ask you more about that, because it could be a negotiating position, but your second one, you say, lies in the existing inherent right policy. You say when you first saw the policy you thought it was not bad, you could work with it. That's a hopeful sort of sign. Then you came to the end of the policy and found none of it applied to you as you live in the western territories.

Could you please explain to me what you mean or what there is in this policy which means it doesn't apply to you? I thought the inherent right policy applied to all first nations from sea to sea to sea, but I could be naive about that.

In the last paragraph you say you have your three conditions. You said you could work with it and then when you came to the end of the policy, whatever that means, you found none of it applied to you as you live in the western territories.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I understand your question. I'm just trying to get some information to make sure I explain this properly.

When we read the bill, we thought it was flexible enough that we could achieve negotiating a self-government agreement for an aboriginal group in Deline, for instance. As we went through it, it started constricting us to negotiating a self-government agreement within the confines of a public government system, in a sense taking consideration for all public individuals in negotiating this agreement.

In our eyes, you're not negotiating a self-government agreement with aboriginal people. In southern Canada the policy allows for aboriginal groups to deal directly with the federal government and negotiate a self-government agreement, whereas it's trying to push us into dealing with a third party, which is the Government of the Northwest Territories, and constrict us to negotiating a self-government agreement within a public government system. We don't think it's right.

Mr. John Finlay: What definition are you giving the word “public”? What is the opposite, private government? The chief says do this—

Mr. Danny Gaudet: First nation aboriginal government.

Mr. John Finlay: It's not a form of public government?

I'm reading from “Self-Government in the Western Northwest Territories”. It talks about settlement lands and communities and the decision to divide the Northwest Territories, which you're quite aware of, into Nunavut and the western Northwest Territories. It says:

Given these circumstances, and considering inefficiencies that may arise due to duplication of programs and services in mixed communities, the creation of completely separate Aboriginal governments in the western NWT may not be practical or efficient.

That's not an absolute statement. That's not saying you don't have an inherent right to self-government.

In the federal government's view, the self-government aspirations of Aboriginal peoples in the NWT can be addressed by providing specific guarantees within public government institutions. The creation of Aboriginal institutions to exercise certain authorities may also be a useful approach.

• 1700

Issues related to overall territorial government structures and related arrangements in the western Northwest Territories after division should be dealt with in other processes. I don't see anything exclusive or separating. That's why I asked you.

It says at the final one there are four first nations self-government agreements... Oh, this is the Yukon. I won't confuse the issue with that.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: In the Northwest Territories, this is the only place in Canada where aboriginals are being made to try to negotiate a self-government within a public government system.

I'll try to clarify this for you.

We want in our government the ability to pass laws, but the way they want it negotiated, they want our regime to fall under an act that is passed by the Government of the Northwest Territories, thus giving the Government of the Northwest Territories the ability to pass all our laws for us.

Mr. John Finlay: Only those laws which—

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Never mind.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm sorry, sir—only those laws that apply to those areas of public government that are dealt with by such things as territories and provinces.

We don't have any government in Canada that isn't public that I'm aware of.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: All we want is the ability to establish a government for our citizens, our community, and that government would work with the so-called public government system in trying to achieve a better atmosphere.

I've got to explain something to you right now that may help you to understand something. We have two political government systems in our community of 600 people. In our eyes, that's inefficient. We have the band, which is established under the treaties, and we've always looked at our chief as our leader. On the other hand, down the hallway we have another municipal government.

We've tried to establish a one-government system in our community through the chartered community status we have now, where we've put the band and the municipal government under this one system. But in reality the band is still governed by the Indian Act and you have the municipal government governed by another act. It just really conflicts at home.

When you're sitting at a meeting with my brothers and you say we should do something, they say, that's a band issue and you can't vote on it because you're not a treaty Indian.

What we're trying to do is establish a government, which we'd like to call a self-government, to be able to govern ourselves, because we represent 96% to 97% of the population in the community. We're trying to establish a government where we eliminate the band's existence in the community. We're trying to eliminate the municipal government's existence and put it under a new self-government act, we'll call it. That, we feel, would eliminate all these political bodies and overlapping agencies and boards that we have in the community. We are trying to simplify a system that has been created by these two governments.

• 1705

Mr. John Finlay: I've got to go back to page three, because I read that, and I had the naive assumption that under the Charter Communities Act, which you approved and which the voters of Deline voted for, you came up with, just as you say, a local form of government under the... And now what are you telling me—that you don't like it, or the band chief has reasserted himself? You say right here:

...under the Charter Communities Act...the status of the municipal corporation was changed with the establishment, by order of the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, of the Charter Community of Deline. The community of Deline thereby became the first community in the NWT to establish itself as a Charter Community.

I wanted to say hurrah.

The idea behind the Charter Community was to move toward re-establishing a one-community government for the community.

I said hurrah again.

Now you are telling me that didn't happen, I guess, or that having voted, now nobody wants to follow the rules of the vote, and want to have it both ways again. Can you help me? Can you help me?

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I'll try, but you're a tough nut to crack.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm reading from your words and trying to make sense out of it, yes. Sorry about that, but...

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Okay. I've tried to give you some history with regard to our political bodies. We end up with two in the community. You are right. We as a community thought to ourselves that to be more efficient and effective for the community, it would be wise to put these two political bodies together under this Charter Communities Act, and we have done that. But you are right, it does not work, because there are two different bodies governed by two different acts in this new organization. Through self-government, we want to eliminate being governed by two different acts, two different pieces of legislation. We want to be governed by one act. That is what we are trying to achieve.

You are right. This charter community status does not fulfil our needs. It just about did, but it didn't. We are going up beyond that, saying okay, the only other avenue we have available to us to eliminate these acts in this community and the government's presence in terms of municipal administration and services is to set up a self-government regime.

Mr. John Finlay: I would have to agree with you, but you may be going in the wrong direction, in sort of common terms. You want to go “up” to that. Maybe we've got to get back down to that first, before we go up. Maybe we have to get the problem sorted out right there among the 616, so that you do speak with one voice, and then this is what you want.

The other thing, Mr. Gaudet, I was told last week in testimony before this committee that there are only two first nations in the whole of the Northwest Territories. I was told that. Now yours wasn't one of them. It was Hay River and another one—another river.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Salt River.

Mr. John Finlay: Salt River and Hay River. Is that right?

Mr. Danny Gaudet: They are the only two reserves in the Northwest Territories under the Indian Act. Is that what you refer to as first nations?

Mr. John Finlay:

[Inaudible—Editor]...the Indian Act.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I'm sorry, I can't hear you at the beginning. You keep—

Mr. John Finlay: I was told those were the only first nations on reserves, and hence covered under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act.

• 1710

Mr. Danny Gaudet: No, the Indian Act also applies to Indians not on reserves. There are aspects in the Indian Act that affect us. The majority of it is for people who are on reserves, but there are only two reserves in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. John Finlay: Okay, I see what you're saying, then. You undertook this Charter Communities Act structure in order to solve a problem. It hasn't solved the problem, so you're back at square one locally.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: We would have been back at square one because the community wanted to dismantle the charter, revert back to what we were before, and then start the self-government negotiations.

In our wisdom, we've talked with the councils and the public, and have asked that they remain under the charter while we negotiate the self-government agreement. It doesn't make sense to pull the two structures apart, and once we've negotiated self-government to then put them back together again under this new act. It would be a lot simpler if we just keep them together right now. If we can achieve what we want to achieve through self-government negotiations, then the band can revert back to the old status it had.

Mr. John Finlay: It sounds pretty complicated to me.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's starting to get interesting. You remind me of Billy Diamond or Zebedee Nungak in Quebec, the leaders in our region. Please continue.

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet: That's a good compliment.

The member questioning me earlier said it's quite confusing. We have to operate with the system that was dumped on us by two governments. All I want to ask you is how you think we feel. Through self-government negotiations, we're trying to participate with the two governments in trying to mould a new system everybody will be happy with. That's all we're trying to do.

Mr. John Finlay: I certainly applaud your efforts; however, I can tell you that you're not going to get there if your preconceived notions are cast in stone.

I'm wondering about the position you attribute to the others in this thing. On the last page, you talk about the “Black Letter Law”. I'm wondering if that's an initial negotiating stance on somebody's part, and if you maybe have to deal with that.

On the last page of your submission, in the large paragraph in the middle of the page, you say:

This approach is contrary to the “Spirit and Intent” philosophy that should govern relations between your government and ours.

I characterize for you the new spirit and intent that is suggested in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. It involves exactly that philosophy, as far as I can see from my reading of the royal commission report.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: When I refer to the “Black Letter Law”, there are laws in these agreements that say they can't infringe on aboriginals' inherent right to self-govern themselves, they can't infringe on their treaty rights, and all that stuff. At the same time, through policies, through the people we've been dealing with, and through the things we've been subject to, we're not being given that flexibility to deal with the stuff we want to deal with, the things we want to address.

• 1715

You're right that the aboriginal royal commission report has done wonders in terms of recommending to the governments that these are the things we have to address, but at the same time, I think the government should start working on implementing the recommendations of that royal commission. Until then...

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, do you have a short question?

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Gaudet, we're going to be meeting with the minister shortly. We may get some of that information from the government. In the meantime, I certainly wish you well.

I hope you will keep trying along the lines you're going, but I don't think it's going to work unless one more time you make the effort and we make the effort, or the department makes the effort, to get over some of these end results and start working from where we are.

I hear you say there are good things in Bill C-6. You recognize that the rivers flow through and into and out of your traditional area, and the caribou move through it. We have agreements about the north slope and controlling development in those areas and so on. I think there are a lot of positive things going on in the Northwest Territories. I would certainly like to think that your community and the other Sahtu communities—as I think we gathered from Chief Nerysoo's presentation—are moving forward in this area.

I guess all we can say is, do the best you can, but don't get hung up on some words that you have the only meaning to. There are other points of view that I'm sure you want to be aware of.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I understand you're going to be busy meeting with the minister. If there are no other questions, I want to finish off with some closing remarks.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: We didn't want Bill C-6 to jeopardize our negotiations. At the same time, when you implement it, we want it to recognize—and I'm not just speaking for us, I'm speaking for all self-government groups that are out there negotiating—that there probably will be some changes in the future. There are new governments coming on stream, with abilities to pass laws and so on. Recognize that in this bill so that we don't run into problems in the future.

When I started this process of negotiating a community self-government agreement, at the beginning of it I thought what a great and difficult task the community was faced with. The political environment in the western territory wasn't thinking along the lines of a community actually negotiating a self-government agreement. It was all on a regional basis or a central government system.

I've been at this since January. I've been listening to people. I've been talking with people. I've been learning. The community has been learning. The community is quite anxious to restructure its systems in the community so that we're more effective and more efficient.

So I had the perception that I had a battle to fight. It wasn't going to be easy. We've had to do a lot of educating, not only at home but also at the territorial and regional levels, just to get to the point we're at.

• 1720

People are starting to realize that we should just look at aboriginal governments away from other systems and see what we can achieve as aboriginal people, and then let's turn around and see how we can set up a partnership between our aboriginal government and the current government systems that are there.

We have a lot of work to do, and I really appreciate the standing committee listening to us and asking us all of these questions, because we think we're not only educating ourselves but we're also educating people who pass laws with respect to our livelihood.

I hope you understand where we're coming from. We're not trying to establish a government that's sovereign and away from Canada and has no regard for the rest of Canada. It's completely the opposite. We're establishing a government that we run but we do it in partnership with other governments and, yes, we recognize all the other Canadian citizens who are out there also.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gaudet.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I want to say thank you again.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I realize that all the questions were put to you. Would Chief Tutcho care to add anything further in conclusion?

[English]

Chief Raymond Tutcho (President, Deline Land Corporation): I'd like to say I thank you for hearing your concerns and our concerns too.

We're trying to work as hard as we can in our community and we're trying to build our community to the level where we want a level of control. I feel we are in the right direction but we still have a difficult task ahead of us that we still have to work on.

Thank you for hearing me out. Thank you again.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gaudet. Thank you, Chief Tutcho. Members have listened closely to your comments regarding Bill C-6. We know that you have travelled a long way to Yellowknife. Thank you for your leadership in this area. I hope that our committee will have the opportunity to travel to your beautiful region in 1998 to acquaint itself with your customs.

[English]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: With regard to you saying visiting, could you explain to us if you are doing a tour? We're not sure what you are doing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We want to travel to various parts of Canada in 1998 to meet with aboriginal peoples, and committee members will certainly want to visit your lovely region.

[English]

Mr. Danny Gaudet: I would like to take this opportunity then to extend an open invitation to the committee to come visit Deline. Hopefully we'll have our new hotel established. It's great to come in the summer months of July or August to enjoy some fishing and to experience what we do and what we live for.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate your invitation.

Mr. Danny Gaudet: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I wish to confirm at this time that the Minister, the Honourable Jane Stewart, will be appearing before the committee tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. in room 705 of the Promenade building.

The meeting is adjourned.