AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

Á

1115

Mr. John Bailey (Negotiator, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt (President, Association of Yukon Communities)

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John Bailey

Á

1135

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. Yvan Loubier

M. John Bailey

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. Inky Mark

Á

1145

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. John Bailey

Á

1150

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Á

1155

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Mr. Inky Mark

Â

1200

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Bailey

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. John Finlay

Mr. Glen Everitt

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Â

1210

Chief Rick O'Brien (Kwanlin Dun First Nation)

The Chair

Chief Rick O'Brien

The Chair

Chief Rick O'Brien

Ms. Rosemary Blair-Smith (Representative, White River First Nation)

Chief Rick O'Brien

Â

1215

Ms. Lizanne Porter (Councillor, Liard First Nation; Kaska First Nation)

Mr. Raymond Morris (Councillor, Liard First Nation; Kaska First Nation)

Chief Dixon Lutz (Hereditary Chief, Kaska First Nation)

Mr. Sam Donnessey (Deputy Chief, Liard First Nation; Kaska First Nation)

Chief Rick O'Brien

Mr. Sam Donnessey

Chief Rick O'Brien

Mr. Mike Smith (Chief Land Claims Negotiator, Kwanlin Dun First Nation)

Â

1220

The Chair

Chief Rick O'Brien

The Chair

Grand Chief Ed Schultz (Council of Yukon First Nations)

Â

1225

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Lindsay Staples (Chair, Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope))

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Lindsay Staples

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Â

1240

Mr. Mike Smith

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mike Smith

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mike Smith

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mike Smith

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mike Smith

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Â

1245

Grand Chief Ed Schultz

Mr. Stephen Mills (Chief Negotiator, Council of Yukon First Nations)

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Â

1250

Mr. Mike Smith

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mike Smith

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Mr. Lindsay Staples

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Ms. Rose-Marie Blair-Smith

The Chair

Chief Rick O'Brien

·

1300

The Chair

Grand Chief Ed Schultz

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 009

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

    We are told that although now we're connected by video conference, our witnesses aren't there. So we will start in Ottawa. I welcome you all and I apologize for the delay.

    I welcome from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, legal counsel, Mr. David Cox; negotiator of resource strategies, John Bailey; and from the Department of Justice, Deborah Friedman, counsel, Métis and non-status initiatives, aboriginal law and strategic initiatives.

    I invite you to make a brief presentation, which will be followed by questions from members.

    Please carry on, Mr. Bailey.

Á  (1115)  

[Translation]

    Mr. John Bailey (Negotiator, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.

    I would like to begin by introducing the other witnesses appearing with me. Deborah Friedman and David Cox are both Justice Canada lawyers who have provided legal support for the development of Bill C-2.

    The bill before you today has been under development since shortly after the Yukon First Nations Umbrella Final Agreement came into force in February of 1995. The Umbrella Final Agreement set out the framework for the completion of individual Yukon First Nation comprehensive land claims and also established requirements for a number of territory-wide resource management processes.

    Among these is a specific obligation for the government to introduce legislation to implement a new development assessment process for the Yukon.

[English]

Bill C-2 is that proposed legislation. It is important to highlight that it has been prepared in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Umbrella Final Agreement and with other land claim agreements that have application in the Yukon. While the umbrella agreement laid out many requirements for the new assessment process, it did not provide all of the details. We've worked very closely with the Yukon first nations and the Government of Yukon for more than six years to flesh out the process in this bill.

    The proposed Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act will create a new development assessment process that will fulfill a major obligation under the Umbrella Final Agreement and put into place a single consistent assessment process for Yukon that will apply to lands under federal, territorial, or first nation jurisdiction.

[Translation]

    A seven-person Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Board will be created, along with six community-based designated offices located throughout the territory. This board and the designated offices will be responsible for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of proposed projects and will then provide recommendations to the government or first nations with jurisdiction over the project regarding whether the project should be allowed to proceed or not and what mitigation measures should be applied to it.

[English]

Á  (1120)  

    Final decisions rest with the first nation or government with jurisdiction who may accept, reject, or vary the assessment recommendations. They must then implement those decisions when they authorize or carry out the project.

[Translation]

    In addition to proposed new projects, Bill C-2 has provisions to allow for the assessment of the environmental and socio-economic effects of first nations, federal or territorial government plans and policies at the request of those responsible for them. Existing projects and activities outside Yukon may also be assessed on request.

[English]

    The proposed legislation contains a number of provisions to help ensure that assessments are carried out efficiently with a high degree of process certainty. For example, binding procedural rules for the conduct of all types of assessments must be established by the board, including rules laying out timelines for assessments and project proposal requirements.

    The bill also provides that the public and interest groups must have an opportunity to review and comment on all of these rules before they are finalized. First nation, territorial, or federal government decision-makers responding to assessment recommendations would be required to do so within specific timeframes that would be set out by regulation.

    Another key goal in the preparation of Bill C-2 was to minimize or preclude process duplication. Assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will not be required for most projects assessed under this proposed legislation. However, there remain opportunities for the involvement of the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for projects requiring authorizations for the National Energy Board or where a panel review is required for other transboundary projects or those under federal jurisdiction.

    The proposed legislation presents a number of options for make-up of joint project review panels involving the Minister of the Environment or others in order to help ensure that only a single panel review process will be applied to a given project of the Yukon.

    For projects on the north slope of the Yukon, where the Inuvialuit Final Agreement screening and review process applies, provisions are included in the bill to preclude duplication of panel reviews. There are also more general provisions requiring that all assessors under the proposed legislation work cooperatively with other processes that may be examining the effects of a project in order to reduce or eliminate duplication of effort in process.

[Translation]

    A major objective of the Umbrella Final Agreement chapter that this bill is based on is to ensure that first nations are involved in development assessments. Bill C-2 guarantees opportunities for first nations, as well as the public and interest groups, to provide input to all assessments. The legislation would also require that information collected or produced by the assessors be maintained on readily accessible public registers, so that it will be a transparent process that facilitates public involvement.

    Bill C-2 is the result of more than six years of close cooperation between federal officials, the First Nations, and the government of Yukon, and also of extensive consultations with the Inuvialuit, the Tribal Council of the Gwich'in, and public interest groups.

    The department obtained special permission to use drafts of the bill for consultation purposes. Several drafts were circulated and discussed with the First Nations and the government of the Yukon, and two of the drafts were used for extensive consultations with the public and various interest groups.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    Three territory-wide community tours, public meetings, workshops, and mail-outs were all part of the consultation process. An Internet website was established and maintained to provide updated information on the development of the proposed legislation. Several meetings were held with individual first nations, the Inuvialuit, municipalities, industry representative, and environmental groups. While only some resulted in changes to the draft legislation, all comments and suggestions received throughout these consultations were given careful consideration.

    Bill C-2 is a result of this extensive consultation and collaboration, and we owe many of the provisions to those who took the time and trouble to review drafts and provide us with constructive suggestions.

    To summarize, this bill represents the completion of a major land claim commitment for the Government of Canada. Beyond this, the proposed legislation provides for a single, Yukon-based, effective, and timely process for assessing the effects of proposed projects that minimizes duplication and provides a high degree of certainty for proponents and others. As such, the bill will provide the Yukon with a valuable tool to encourage responsible, sustainable development in the territory for many years to come.

    We thank the committee for this opportunity to assist you in your deliberations and welcome any questions that you may have.

    Merci beaucoup.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey.

    I just discovered why our witnesses aren't on the video; it's because they're in this room. So I apologize to everyone; we could have started at 11. We made a mistake somewhere.

    So I'd like to welcome Mayor Glen Everitt, president of the Association of Yukon Communities; and Mr. Jim Slater, executive director. Will you make your presentation, please?

    Mr. Glen Everitt (President, Association of Yukon Communities): Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

    My name is Glen Everitt. I'm president of the Association of Yukon Communities and mayor of Dawson City, Yukon. I am appearing on behalf of the Association of Yukon Communities, an association that includes all incorporated municipalities within the territory. Our residents make up over 80% of the Yukon population. AYC represents the interests of those residents on a community level, and it is from this perspective that I address the committee today.

    From the beginning, AYC has been an active participant in the Government of Yukon's public consultation process that began in 1996. We recognize and accept that a development assessment process was guaranteed under chapter 12 of the Yukon land claims settlement Umbrella Final Agreement. The publicly stated rationale for drafting DAP legislation was the more saleable concept of a made-in-Yukon solution to problems with the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It was anticipated that as a result of this lengthy and complex process, the proposed DAP legislation would satisfy chapter 12 of the UFA and also replace CEA as it applied in the Yukon.

    In 1996, the Government of Yukon's public consultation process included the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Klondike Placer Miners' Association, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Yukon Conservation Society, and the Association of Yukon Communities. These organizations represent three segments of Yukon society: government, industry, and environmentalist.

    An imbalance was immediately apparent on two accounts. The Government of Yukon/federal government provided financial assistance to conservation organizations and not to industry, and the government provided first nations with funding to be able to go to this consultation process. Small Yukon communities, with their limited tax bases, were left with the burden of trying to find the funding to participate in the initial consultation.

    Secondly, the structure of consultations was set up in such a manner that gave industry and municipalities few seats, out of a hundred people.

    As a result of these imbalances, some concerns and issues were not dealt with. One was municipal responsibility. The central issue for Yukon municipalities is that we are an order of government under Yukon legislation, and our responsibility to our residents and taxpayers is no less than that of any other order of government across Canada. Many would argue that the grassroots services we provide are more essential than those of other governments.

    A decision body, as identified in Bill C-2, includes only federal, territorial, and first nation governments, all of whom have decision-making responsibilities for projects taking place within their boundaries or on their lands. The lack of representation by municipalities is offensive to the municipalities.

    The relationship with other orders of government has been improving over the past decade, with the territorial government truly consulting municipalities on issues that are within areas of municipality responsibility. Decisions on development within municipal boundaries should continue to be made by municipalities unless there is a regulatory regime under some other level of government, in which case that regulatory body would prevail. Therefore, the federal water board or the Government of Yukon air emissions standards would continue to apply, and those governments would be the decision body. However, for any recommendations under Bill C-2 that do not fall within the purview of the various existing bodies, municipalities should continue to make the decisions within their boundaries.

    On appeals, the association has a strong concern that as a result of the municipalities not being recognized as an order of government in this bill or being made a decision body, we may not have the right of appeal on every issue within municipal boundaries.

    Section 116 identifies the parties, or anyone directly affected, who may apply to the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory for relief. It is conceivable that where a proponent of a project that is within municipal boundaries receives a decision on a project, the municipality may wish to appeal that decision, but may not be considered as anyone directly affected, because our territorial government represents our interests.

Á  (1130)  

    Municipal governments are a creation of the territorial government, much in the same way as the Government of Yukon is a creation of the federal government. For example, the territorial government recently approved land for a pig farm within the municipality of Dawson. In that process, the municipality was empowered to overturn the decision. Under Bill C-2 we are not certain that we would retain that right, a right that any democratically elected government should enjoy.

    With regard to panels, it is AYC's firm position that clause 65 must be amended to make it mandatory for panels on projects occurring within the municipal boundaries, or within the region, to have a representative on the panel recommended by the municipality. Also, where a panel is selected to conduct an assessment on a project, Bill C-2 must make it mandatory for that assessment to take place in the closest community to where the project will take place. In the event that the assessment of a project is being considered being held in another location, the consent of those municipalities most affected by the project must be required.

    Municipalities need certainty in their planning. Will Bill C-2 ensure that official community plans in zoning bylaws will be respected? Even within signed self-government agreements clauses were accepted that provided certainty to municipal rights and jurisdictions. It appears that the review panels will have the authority to override municipal government in Yukon and leave us reliant on the Government of Yukon to protect our interests. This is a step backward for Yukon municipalities. This is a step backward for democracy.

    We have necessary activities such as solid waste landfills, snow dumps, plowed snow, road works, culverts, sewage lagoons, environmental clean-ups, etc., that require the planning that municipalities have become the experts in. Services and issues, taken for granted by the residents, all require great thought and action. The last thing we need, as a municipal government, is another piece of legislation that could require us to get approval from another body.

    Yukoners were led to believe that Bill C-2 would replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as it applied in the Yukon. The documents accompanying the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act state that it will apply a single process to projects and, further, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will have very limited application in the Yukon. It appears that some projects may be subject to a dual CEAA and YESAA approval process. This is simply unacceptable to the majority of Yukoners.

    I ask the committee to address these issues, the issues that were identified by member municipalities of the Association of Yukon Communities, thus ensuring that we have a guaranteed voice that does not consist of forked words like “may” or “could” and replaces them with “will” and “shall.”

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll proceed to questions. Colleagues, are we okay with a first round of five minutes? Is that okay? Therefore the official opposition gets six minutes.

    Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): For the question I'm about to ask, probably Mr. Bailey is the one who would want to respond off the top here, but if the others want to weigh in on this one too, I'd appreciate it.

    I notice that throughout the bill the minister exercises a fair bit of control, and particularly in terms of almost--as the bill stands without amendment--an indefinite number of appointees to the board. I'm wondering why that isn't much more specific. If I read it correctly here, he could appoint dozens. They could be a patronage driven or whatever.

    I have two questions here. On the issue of qualifications, I don't see any setting out of or requirement to set out minimum qualifications, and also, why is that the minister has an open-ended number of appointments that he can make?

    Mr. John Bailey: Thank you very much for the question.

    In terms of why there is flexibility in the number of members of the board who could be appointed, we do have a set number. It would begin with seven members on the board. Given that we can't predict how busy that board would be and that panel members for any panel review must be drawn from members of the board, we wanted to make sure there would be some provision to expand the number on the board if operational requirements dictated so down the road.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let me interject, Mr. Bailey. Why wouldn't we want to set some caps and top limits, then, instead of an indefinite, open-ended number? A guy could get really extreme on this, but it could be in the hundreds if he so chose. But if you have a different figure in mind, why don't we propose that in the bill?

    Mr. John Bailey: What's proposed in the bill is that the board is set at seven initially, and the reason we suggested this in the bill is that it seemed to be a number that, given an anticipated workload, would actually be able to handle that workload.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I understand that, but beyond that it can be additionally as many as he chooses, by the dozens or whatever. So why? You must have some sense, or premonition, of what it might take down the road. Maybe even keep it high if you want, but why don't we have any number down the road? I understand that seven is the beginning point, but that's only the beginning point and it could go to the moon, or quite high. Why don't we have a number?

    Mr. John Bailey: Well, again, our main interest was to provide a number for the initial membership and allow for that to be expanded if the operational requirements of the board so dictated. It wasn't anticipated certainly that we would be into the hundreds or anything like that. But we did want to make sure there was that flexibility there, so that we weren't faced with a situation where there's an inadequate number of board members to strike the panel needed and we have unnecessary delays in the assessment and ultimate approval of projects.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let me put it this way, then. Would there be some merit to actually trying to extrapolate and say it should be up to 18 or up to two dozen or some such figure? Would there not be some merit to trying to think this through and project down the road a bit and put some numbers in there? Why don't we have anything in there at all?

    Mr. John Bailey: Well, from our perspective, when we were preparing the bill and discussing it with others who would play a role, we didn't want to tie it to a firm number because we can't anticipate the level of activity that may be occurring in the Yukon in the future. There could be a large staking rush if diamonds were found in the territory. There are a number of circumstances that could result in a large number of projects coming into this process and requiring assessment. One of the reasons there is that this flexibility is to allow for changes in the level of activity and the level of business that this board may be undertaking.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm sorry. Are you talking then of panels--to strike additional panels for all this activity that would occur and so on--as if it's no longer a board? Can't they just appoint different panel members but have limits in terms of the number of board members?

    Mr. John Bailey: My point is that the panel members, to do a panel review, must be drawn from the board membership. If you had more than one project subject to a panel review, there are only so many places that a small number of people can be at one time. And if we wanted to conduct a full panel review of two project simultaneously, we'd want to be able to draw on enough board members so that they could have a quorum and actually conduct the panel as it's provided for in the proposed legislation.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. Now, if all was goodness and light and wonderful and ideal in this world and so on, could you see that there would be any potential with this kind of scenario for patronage appointments, quite beyond, as you say, the requirements, or dictates, of needing people for that? That has to be the question of the public--maybe the bureaucrat doesn't ask that--and of a politician obviously too. I just keep pressing that. I think there needs to be a particular number in there somewhere. And I would think that good heads together on this should come up with some kind of a number based on the anticipated number of projects that might come on stream.

    Maybe there are other ways to leave yourself some wiggle room, but I'm not comfortable, frankly, with an open-ended number. Seven and then to grow indefinitely, I think, is too loose. I would make my point along those lines.

    The Chair: And if there's a possibility of spending some time on that issue--I'm sure it will be an issue when we do clause-by-clause--there may be a way to work out a compromise, working with Mr. Vellacott and with probably Mr. Finlay, who is the parliamentary secretary, and others. Maybe we can reach a compromise that will save us some difficulties when we do clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

    Mr. Loubier, you have five minutes.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have a question for Mayor Everitt. He just mentioned the fact that there could be a dual process for assessment. I looked at the bill and I did not see any possibility of any dual assessment process. There is a single process and it seems to me that it is well structured, unless I am wrong. Perhaps I misread this, but I would like the mayor to tell me where the dual process is mentioned. Personally, I did not see any.

[English]

    Mr. Glen Everitt: I'm looking at the backgrounder that was provided to us on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act. On page 2, there was the question, “Will the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act still apply in the Yukon after the new Act comes into effect?” And the statement is: “The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will have very limited application in Yukon... It may still have application at a panel review level, particularly when transboundary projects are under consideration.”

    Our experience has showed us that “may” usually means “will”. That's why I made the statement.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Bailey, could you answer the mayor's question? This looks like an interesting approach. I do not have it in my notes, nor is it in the bill. This is something new to me and I am a bit skeptical.

    M. John Bailey: Thank you very much. I will answer in English.

[English]

    I think you're quite right that there isn't an opportunity for two assessments, one under CEAA and one under this process. When we talk about CEAA possibly applying, in the panel provisions of the draft legislation we identify that there could be a CEAA panel instead of one conducted under the usual process in this legislation. It wouldn't be both of them; it would be one or the other.

    On what we've tried to provide here, when we speak of a single assessment process for a project such as a gas pipeline through the Yukon, which is fairly topical these days, only a single-panel review process would be applied to that. It might be a CEAA panel, a panel under this proposed legislation, or a panel that's constructed jointly between CEAA and this process.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Mayor, does Mr. Bailey's answer reassure you? Anyway, it seems clear to me.

[English]

    Mr. Glen Everitt: Am I reassured? No, not yet. I have to go back and talk to some people back home. It brings to light a few other questions, hearing the response on what the triggers are to indicate whether it will be a CEAA panel or if it will be through DAP, and how long the process will take to determine if it's going to be a CEAA panel or a DAP. So I'm not completely assured.

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our guests this morning.

    Your Worship, having cut my teeth in the municipal level of government, I always had concerns when it came to not only provincial legislation but certainly federal. The provinces always use the same argument, that the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces or the territories.

    Did the territorial government express any concerns about how Bill C-2 would impact their legislation on the municipalities?

    Mr. Glen Everitt: The YTG has been most agreeable on almost everything, except when it comes to the federal government. Our concerns have been pounded since the very beginning, day one. We've really had no success, except for another meeting, when they've come to the community and just said no.

    Mr. Inky Mark: The way the legislation is structured I guess you basically have to wait to see if you end up on a panel or not. There's very little reference to municipalities at all, other than hearing that there was consultation at the beginning of the process. How can we ensure that municipalities are involved in the process? Should we denote in one of the clauses that municipalities should be one of the stakeholders?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Glen Everitt: Our preference is that it actually be in the legislation. We have large tracts of land. We just elected a government that stated they would transfer, upon devolution, the lands within the municipal boundaries that are currently theirs. There's potential for development all over the place. The municipalities are very concerned and have asked, since day one, that we be recognized with the word “will” and not “may”. They've told us they may consult us on an application, and we're really concerned about that.

    Mr. Inky Mark: This issue of assessment outside the boundaries of Yukon makes sense environmentally, but how is it enforceable?

    Mr. John Bailey: First of all, this process was set up to do assessments and provide some information or recommendations to governments or first nation governments.

    On a project outside the territory, the land claim agreement on which this is based provides an option for a request to be made by government for an assessment of activities outside the territory that may have impacts inside the territory. It's not clear what that process would end up producing; however, in the draft legislation you'll see there's a provision. In that case, a report of their findings would be provided to the relevant governments to consider.

    It's not a provision that would be used very often. Certainly, if a project were outside the territory and extended within the Yukon, then we'd be looking more at a cooperative or joint assessment being done of that kind of project.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I just have one short question. Under the umbrella plan agreement it says, “ensures that Projects are undertaken consistent with the principle of Sustainable Development” , and we don't see that principle acknowledged in the bill. Is there any reason for that?

    Mr. John Bailey: You actually do, but you may not realize that you see it. In terms of the factors that are considered, we've actually taken the definition of sustainable development from that Umbrella Final Agreement . It's actually articulated among the factors that need to be considered with every project assessment. We don't use the term “sustainable development”. What we've done is taken the definition from the Umbrella Final Agreement and actually incorporated that definition and used that rather than the term “sustainable development”.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Is there any harm in actually defining it and putting it in the bill so at least people know what they're talking about? It's all right to talk about process, but....

    Mr. John Bailey: With due respect, we thought that “sustainable development” is a term that people quite often don't understand. We thought we should be more specific in the bill and actually use the defined term that's drawn from the final agreement in order to explain it better. We actually considered it to be an improvement to use the definition rather than the term “sustainable development”.

    Mr. Inky Mark: You don't see any harm in using the words, though?

    The Chair: Sorry.

    Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'm going to ask you some questions, Mr. Bailey, and because our process doesn't allow the various interveners to talk to each other, I'll try to anticipate some of the concerns of some of the interveners and let you respond to them.

    The first question is on the point made by the municipalities, and I think there are some of these questions in the Library of Parliament submission here too. How does this bill ensure that decisions that heretofore previously were under municipal jurisdiction, within the municipal boundaries obviously, are still under their jurisdiction?

    Mr. John Bailey: Thank you for the question.

    I'll answer what I think the question is. In terms of municipal authorities and issuing permits and so on, this doesn't prevent that from occurring or replace that authority with something else. What we have, however, is that this whole system is set up so that authorizations for projects, as defined in this bill, are to be issued in conformity with decision documents that are issued in response to assessment recommendations.

    As has been pointed out, the municipal governments are not considered to be decision bodies that issue those decision documents. The territorial government, the federal government, and first nations governments are decision bodies. The reason we have that circumstance is that the Umbrella Final Agreement, on which this is based, only provides for the federal and territorial governments, and first nations, to be decision bodies. It doesn't provide a decision body role for municipal governments, and for us to have included such a provision to make them decision bodies would have been inconsistent with the final agreement that we were basing this on.

    In summary, the circumstance we have is that a municipality, when it's issuing authorizations for a project, will have to conform with a decision document that's issued by the territorial government. My understanding in discussions between the territorial government and municipalities in general, as represented by Mayor Everitt, is that there would be some close consultation and some opportunities for delegation of that decision-making role that's provided for in the bill.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

    I meant to say at the beginning, welcome to all the Yukoners who are here today and on the screen. It's great to see so many involved in a federal process.

    The second question is related to first nations. My understanding is of course that this bill will help give first nations more decision-making relating to assessments, and whether or not they have their agreement already, this is a good thing. It'll give them more input to assessments on their land. Could you confirm this?

    But second in that respect is this. As you know, the Kaska and Kwanlin Dun are not members of CYFN. Can you tell me if and how they've been consulted?

    Mr. John Bailey: Thanks for the question. I can confirm your first point, that this proposed legislation provides a stronger role for all first nations in the territory in assessments of all projects, regardless of whether they have a final agreement settled or not.

    The additional role for those first nations that have settled their final agreements is that they then have control over their own lands and become decision-makers underneath this process. But certainly there are some benefits to all first nations, regardless of the status of their claims.

    With respect to consultations with the Kwanlin Dun and the Kaska first nations, to deal with the Kwanlin Dun first, at one time and for about four years of the six that we consulted on this process, they were actually represented through the CYFN caucus and at the table where we discussed this, the draft legislation, with the Council of Yukon First Nations. Subsequent to that, when they broke away from that representation, we provided them with the same number of drafts of legislation as we were providing to the Council of Yukon First Nations, offered them time and funding to assist them in the review of that draft legislation, and met with them to discuss their concerns or heard their concerns in writing.

    Similarly with the Kaska, who were never formally part of the Council of Yukon First Nations caucus when they were discussing this legislation, they were also provided with the same drafts of the legislation as were the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government. Again, we arranged bilateral meetings with the Kaska First Nation to discuss the legislation throughout its development.

    The Chair: Thank you. The second round will be a three-minute round, three minutes for the question and the answer.

    Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We'll have to be quick in the back-and-forth exchange here.

    I sit on volunteer boards and paid boards, and it would seem to me that this is certainly a different style of board. It's certainly not the Carver model or any such model that I'm aware of.

    So again I need to ask John, if the board members here are doing all the heavy lifting through these panel member roles, it's kind of without precedent, isn't it? Is there any other example or parallel to this, federal government or otherwise, where we conceivably have a board of three dozen, four dozen, or five dozen people? This is certainly not the traditional board model.

    Mr. John Bailey: Certainly on the question of whether we have any precedents, the answer is yes. There are a number of these so-called co-management boards or boards that are set up pursuant to land claim agreements. The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board is very similar to this in terms of--

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: How big are they in terms of numbers?

    Mr. John Bailey: I believe the review board in the Northwest Territories has nine members.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Nine?

    Mr. John Bailey: Yes.

    There are others. I believe the Environmental Impact Review Board in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region has seven members.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I can live with those numbers; it's just that I see this as an infinite possibility here.

    Are each of these board members paid significantly or on a full-time equivalent basis?

    Mr. John Bailey: The amount they're paid basically depends on the work they conduct and--

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are they paid on a per hour basis, or a per diem basis?

    Mr. John Bailey: I believe they'd be paid in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, and why would one maybe not set out some minimum qualifications and criteria for selection of these board members, and then maybe have some other people just simply called panel members, where they wouldn't have to be board members, but with proper qualification and criteria, and so on? Is that a possibility or within the realm of a feasible way to do it?

    Mr. John Bailey: The land claim agreement on which this is based requires that panel members be drawn from members of the board. So we didn't have any flexibility there, and they have to come from that source.

    In terms of qualifications, though none are included in the legislation, in the implementation discussions going on among those who will actually nominate these members--that's the Yukon government, the Council of Yukon First Nations, and the federal government--as they search out prospective members, there is some discussion about looking at what sort of qualifications may be required.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So we could set a number of 18 or 24 members, or whatever. If you're talking numbers of 7 and 9, and so on, we could come to a number, possibly?

    Mr. John Bailey: In terms of an outside number, I'm sure we could, with some discussion, come up with some sort of--

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott:You mean, up to, or a maximum of, or--

    Mr. John Bailey: --potential worst-case scenario in terms of how many members we may require.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'd feel more comfortable with that.

    Thanks.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. St. Denis.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you all for being here. My question might be more pertinent to the next witnesses but I'm not sure Mr. Bailey will be here, so I'll go ahead.

    With respect to the individual final agreements with first nations, an area that Larry Bagnell touched on, and then over that the master or Umbrella Final Agreement and then the legislation over that, I understand 8 of 14 first nations have come to conclusion as far as their own final agreements go. Are they all the same? Of the 8 that have been concluded out of 14, if I were to line them all up, are they all exactly the same, and how do they generally fit into the Umbrella Final Agreement? I want to get my head around that, because I think the point is that ultimately you don't want to have a lot of inconsistencies among and between the various final agreements.

    Mr. John Bailey: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Umbrella Final Agreement provides a framework for the individual first nation final agreements that are subsequently settled. So all of those final agreements more or less conform to that framework with special provisions to meet the particular case of that individual first nation.

    A land claim agreement for the Vuntut Gwitchin, for example, contains the provisions of the Umbrella Final Agreement and then also some special provisions that apply only to the Vuntut Gwitchin and their particular circumstance.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: What would be an example of something specific to a particular first nation that wouldn't be in some other first nation's agreement?

    Mr. John Bailey: Provisions dealing with a special management area that is geographically specific for that particular first nation is an example. Certainly not every first nation is going to be identifying a similar special management area, so often you'll see different areas and special circumstances for that particular first nation.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: By way of conclusion, are those negotiations proceeding for the other six first nations? Do you foresee any great delays including the final six?

    Mr. John Bailey: That's not really my area of expertise.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: We'll ask the others, I guess.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Bailey, would you agree that all federal legislation, including Bill C-2, if it does acknowledge, acknowledges the provincial and territorial governments but always ignores and leaves out municipal governments?

  (1200)  

    Mr. John Bailey: Certainly this legislation doesn't ignore municipal governments--

    Mr. Inky Mark: I mean in the text.

    Mr. John Bailey: The municipal governments are included in the text here, and if you'll look through the bill, they're referenced quite a few times in terms of their role as a government agency, and special provisions regarding referral of a municipal plan for review--that their consent's required before that's done and so on. I think it would be inaccurate to say that they're not in the legislation, because certainly the term “municipal government” is used fairly often in the legislation.

    Mr. Inky Mark: That's good news to my ears. From that point of view, because they're acknowledged in the legislation, how do we ensure that their rights aren't usurped by this legislation?

    Mr. John Bailey: Again, the relationship is recognized in this legislation, and as I've said before, we've had to make sure this legislation is consistent with the final agreement.

    The territorial government is a decision body under this legislation, and as Mayor Everitt pointed out in his remarks, the municipalities are a creation of the territorial government. If they had to conform with any decision document for a project in a municipality, the proper connection would seem to be with the territorial government that has created those municipalities.

    Mr. Inky Mark: So basically to guarantee access to decision-making, they really should go after the territorial government rather than the federal government.

    Mr. John Bailey: Well, it is the territorial government that will make those decisions that will potentially have some impact on municipalities, yes.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The last question will be by Mr. Finlay. But before I give Mr. Finlay the floor, I will say to Mayor Everitt I will allow you two minutes for closing remarks afterwards to make your last pitch.

    Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to thank all the witnesses for their appearance this morning.

    I have two short questions that I hope will evince a short answer, and they are to you, Mayor Everitt.

    Does the association agree that Bill C-2 should be consistent with the requirements of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement? That's the first one.

    Second, is it the association's view that municipalities should not be subject to the assessment process provided for in this bill?

    Third, do you feel there has been sufficient consultation through the development, for the things you've talked about and the issues you've raised? Have they been carefully considered and implemented in many cases? If not, which one do you want...

    Mr. Glen Everitt: Well, there are three questions there. First of all, does the association agree with the... is it the UFA?

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay, could you repeat your question?

    Mr. John Finlay: Does the association agree that Bill C-2 must be consistent with the requirements of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement?

    Mr. Glen Everitt: The answer to that is yes.

    Mr. John Finlay: Should municipalities not be subject to the assessment process provided for in this bill? Is your idea that municipalities should be exempt from the assessment process?

    Mr. Glen Everitt: I don't believe that municipalities should be exempt. But I don't believe they should be ignored either.

    Mr. John Finlay: If the Umbrella Final Agreement doesn't give municipalities or the AYM the status of a decision-making body—which, I take it, is what we're seeking—what kinds of guarantees are there in the bill that would in your opinion have some influence, be looked at, and be taken seriously on a given project?

    Mr. Glen Everitt: We don't see any guarantee in this that the municipalities are really going to have a say. All we have had are verbal statements that they may talk to us.

    We understand the UFA was set up recognizing three orders of governments. I'm personally of the opinion that the mayors and councillors of the Yukon were sleeping at the time of the drafting of that legislation in 1973. This is a personal opinion. But the UFA recognizes the three, so we understand this process.

    We are very, very concerned, and have indicated over and over, that municipalities have a jurisdiction. We're dealing with issues daily that should be federal and should be territorial, but they're not. They're being dealt with in the municipalities by the municipalities. There are huge tracts of lands where applications can be made, but we have absolutely no say in the decision. We don't want to go by the government of Yukon just saying, “We may talk to you”, or the act saying, “They may talk to you”. We're very concerned about it. We really fear that we're going to go backwards when this goes in.

    It's going to be up to the government of the day. Whatever government has been elected, whatever minister is there, it'll be that minister's decision that day on whether or not the municipality... and then four years later you will have another government and it could take a completely different approach. So we're very worried that it's actually going to impede our growth as communities.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Mayor Everitt, you may continue. You're now in your closing remarks.

    Mr. Glen Everitt: I do appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I'm sorry you thought I was going to be on this screen, which might have delayed the process. We were here for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meetings, so it was easier for us to just come in. We would have missed the first day of this in transport.

    I actually brought this matter to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in my capacity as chair of the Northern Forum. Although this is good legislation, I am very concerned that it doesn't truly reflect a made-in-Yukon approach if you've excluded the municipalities and just continue to say we were born of the territorial government. We'd like to remind them that they were born of the federal government. Their act is not different from ours.

    Our municipal act was amended and changed. It is recognized as one of the best in Canada, and it clearly says that the municipalities are a level of government. They update and change legislation daily, and federally they update daily. As the times change, legislation has to move along and change with it.

    The UFA is from 1973, or it's from later than that. I'm sorry. But times have changed since the Umbrella Final Agreement was passed. I personally don't believe that, by excluding municipal government, this legislation reflects the true Yukon Territory anymore.

    Thank you for your time and your consideration in the matter.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone. That was very informative and helpful for the committee.

    We will now move on to the second phase of our meeting by welcoming by video conference, from the Kwanlin Dun First Nation, Chief Rick O'Brien, and Mike Smith, chief land claims negotiator; from the Kaska First Nation, Dixon Lutz, hereditary chief; Sam Donnessey, deputy chief; Raymond Morris, councillor; and Lizanne Porter, councillor; and from the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope), Lindsay Staples, chair. With us here from the Council of Yukon First Nations are Grand Chief Ed Schultz and Stephen Mills, chief negotiator.

    The order of the day, which I didn't read at the beginning, is Bill C-2, An Act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon.

    We will start with the presentations of our friends in the Yukon. Could I have an indication of how many presentations there will be and approximately how long they will take, please.

  (1210)  

    Chief Rick O'Brien (Kwanlin Dun First Nation): We have four presentations.

    The Chair: Approximately how long are they?

    Chief Rick O'Brien: We understood that we only had five minutes, but we would appreciate a little more time.

    The Chair: Usually, a little more time ends up being half an hour.

    Chief Rick O'Brien: That would be great.

    The Chair: It's important that the members have an opportunity to question you afterwards. I would ask that we keep the total to 25 minutes for the four presentations.

    You may begin now. It's 12:10 here. It's 9:10 there, I assume.

    Chief Rick O'Brien: Thank you.

    I'd like to say good morning and good afternoon to the members of the standing committee. My name is Rick O'Brien. I'm the chief of Kwanlin Dun First Nation. I would also like to say good morning to Ed Schultz, who's down there with you.

    We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, even at this late stage. With me is Mike Smith. He is our chief land claims negotiator.

    Also with us today are representatives of the Kaska First Nation and the White River First Nation. In a moment I will ask them to introduce themselves.

    Kwanlin Dun and the Kaska First Nation are not members of the Council of Yukon First Nations, but White River First Nation is. Together we represent over 40% of the Yukon first nations.

    Kwanlin Dun has a membership of 1,200 people. Its traditional territory encompasses Whitehorse, the largest municipality of any community in the Yukon. Kwanlin Dun's traditional territory encompasses a vast majority of the Yukon's native and non-native people, and it has the greatest density of population of anywhere in the Yukon. Our traditional territory continues to experience the most extensive development activities in the Yukon. It has generally lower environmental qualities, along with a lower wildlife population and fish stocks and continuing decline in their critical habitat. Generally, the quality of life and social and economic well-being of many Kwanlin Dun people are significantly lower than that of most other people living in Kwanlin Dun's traditional territory, notwithstanding the level of development activities that occur here.

    With me are representatives of the White River First Nation.

    Ms. Rosemary Blair-Smith (Representative, White River First Nation): Hi. My name is Rose-Marie Blair-Smith. I'm speaking on behalf of our chief, Angela Demit. I'm a member of the White River First Nation. With me is our councillor, Stanley Jack.

    I have some issues I want to bring forward. A resolution was passed by the CYFN in favour of the DAP process on April 23, 2002. White River does not agree with the process. Although we are a part of a process of inclusion and it's in the guise of a consultation, the internal process is not representative of White River's position on the development assessment process. We are a part of the CYFN, although we feel in this situation we are not being represented by our central organization.

    Having assessments of all projects before claims settlements is not a position that White River First Nation is comfortable with. We've been placed in that position because, on the whole idea of having DAP when we started negotiations, we assumed we would all have our formal agreements in place before this process was handed over to the territorial government. But White River is not in that position. We do not have a settlement. We do not like the process before us, before our final agreement.

    Those first nations that have final agreements are supporting the development assessment process, and we understand why. They're supporting it out of a point of privilege, because they already have their formal agreements.

    Thank you.

    Chief Rick O'Brien: Thank you, Rose.

    Also with us is the Kaska First Nation. Would you introduce yourselves?

  (1215)  

    Ms. Lizanne Porter (Councillor, Liard First Nation; Kaska First Nation): I'm Lizanne Porter, councillor with Liard First Nation.

    Mr. Raymond Morris (Councillor, Liard First Nation; Kaska First Nation): I'm Raymond Morris, councillor with the Liard First Nation. Thank you.

    Chief Dixon Lutz (Hereditary Chief, Kaska First Nation): I'm Hereditary Chief Dixon Lutz, of the Kaska Nation.

    Mr. Sam Donnessey (Deputy Chief, Liard First Nation; Kaska First Nation): My name is Sam Donnessey, and I'm deputy chief of the Liard First Nation, member of the Kaska Nation.

    Chief Rick O'Brien: Are you going to give your presentation, Sam?

    Mr. Sam Donnessey: Thank you for the opportunity to be here on behalf of the Liard First Nation. The Kaska Nation is made up of 5,000 members living in the east Yukon. We are part of the Kaska Nation, which is made up of two nations in the Yukon and three in northern British Columbia. Like Kwanlin Dun, we are not a member of the Yukon First Nation.

    Our territory is rich in resources--wildlife, forests, minerals, oil and gas--that hold a great future for our peoples if we manage them well and develop them carefully. Like Kwanlin Dun, we have not concluded our land claims agreement with Canada. I'm sure there are many councillors here from first nations that haven't signed their own deals with the government this year. In June we had our general assembly, and we didn't sign our land claims with the government. They're still on hold.

    Like Kwanlin Dun, we are a first nation that still has section 35 rights under the Canadian Constitution. Canada must deal with our nation on a government-to-government basis.

    Chief Rick O'Brien: Thank you.

    Also with us is our chief land claims negotiator, Mr. Mike Smith, who will be giving us some of his thoughts on the bill.

    Mr. Mike Smith (Chief Land Claims Negotiator, Kwanlin Dun First Nation): Good morning and good afternoon. Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you to present our arguments with respect to the proposed bill, one of which is to propose two amendments to Bill C-2. That is not to say that we support the bill.

    Our first proposal suggests that the act should contain a provision that requires the minister, with the full participation of all Yukon first nations, to conduct a full public review of the provisions and the operations of this act within five years of it coming into effect. This approach was adopted under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, subsections 72(1) and 72(2). We understand that it has also been included in the new proposed Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Bill C-9.

    The Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, between CYI, Canada, and the Yukon, requires under chapter 12 that the parties review the development of the assessment process five years after the enactment of the legislation. However, in addition to this, those first nations that are not members of the CYI, the CYFN, and the general public require a public process that will provide us ample opportunity to revisit and review many of the substantive issues and concerns that will not be addressed now but should be considered another day.

    In our view, especially based on our experience with the negotiations on Bill C-2, between Canada, the Yukon, and CYFN, a legislated commitment to the public review of the act five years following its enactment is critical. The CEAA review proved extremely useful, and we believe that approach should be used here as well.

    Bill C-2 will establish a process that is far more complicated than a small jurisdiction like the Yukon requires. There are key issues that require further attention and discussion: the status of decision documents; the effects on compliance monitoring; class, area, and strategic level assessments; and the consolidated processes for enactment. The act should contain a provision that establishes a regulation advisory committee. Again, this approach is found in the CEAA law and could be modelled after it.

    Our first nations, especially those who are not part of the CYFN and those without agreements, want to be assured that we have every opportunity to meaningfully review the draft regulations that will be developed with the implementation of the act. In our view,... [Inaudible—Editor] ...should also be given this opportunity.

    As well, in light of our experience with the development of this act, we would like explicit assurance in the act that our first nations will be directly involved in the development of the regulations.

    Time is short, and I want to assure the committee that a formal statement of draft proposals, along with supporting documents and materials, will be provided to the committee clerk within the next 24 hours. Upon their receipt, I would like them to be part of the official record of our intervention, and that copies be made available to all members of the committee.

    Finally, let me say that we are not party to the UFA. The provisions on consultation in the UFA obviously have not been followed in consulting with CYI, with Kwanlin Dun. However, the need to consult first nations is well documented in common law. You only have to look at the Taku River case, the Delgamuukw case, that there's an obligation on the Crown to consult people whose lands are going to be reviewed when development is being considered. So I want to say to you simply that, in our view, the whole consultation process for those first nations who are not party to the UFA has been flawed, and despite the meetings that have been held, clearly we feel that we've been totally ignored by this whole process.

    Thank you.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before we go on, regarding the documents that you wish to share with us, if you could send them to us earlier than in 24 hours, the sooner the better, because they need to be translated so that we can distribute copies to all members as soon as possible.

    Please carry on.

    Chief Rick O'Brien: I'd like to thank you for the opportunity that you've provided us to express our disappointment with the process and the resulting legislation. Clearly we are disappointed.

    Kwanlin Dun is the largest first nation in the Yukon. Because of our geographical location, we will be the hardest hit by this legislation. So I, as chief, have to take the brunt of this blow.

    All of us are here because there are a number of issues in the bill that are important to us and important to our future. We are disappointed that they cannot all be addressed at this time. But our proposed amendments will allow us and others the opportunity to address these with other issues in the near future. With that we would have some reasons for optimism.

    Currently Kwanlin Dun is putting together a package for our members to vote on at a ratification date. This will be part of the package. We are trying to ensure that we get a land claims settlement. This will be an obstacle in our view.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone.

    Now we go to our witnesses in the Centre Block in Ottawa from the Council of Yukon First Nations, Grand Chief Schultz, please.

    Grand Chief Ed Schultz (Council of Yukon First Nations): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to thank the standing committee for allowing the council this opportunity to speak on a very important bill, one that has been in development for even longer than the seven years that had been outlined.

    You have to recognize that the conceptual stage of this bill occurred long before there were actual substantive discussions between the parties, in particular amongst all Yukon first nations, even those that have just spoken to you. Many years ago we participated in a lengthy process leading to the land claims and self-government negotiations. Those processes were divided into different areas of discussion. One of them, of course, was land and resources, and a spinoff of one of those caucus groups was the environmental assessment process.

    To give you a bit of background, members, at that time we were dealing with the EARP process, the old federal process, which wasn't fully implemented in the territories per se. As a matter of fact, Yukon First Nations representation under the old RERC process, which is the Regional Environmental Review Committee, was one seat and a committee of about 30 people, from Ducks Unlimited to every conceivable organization that had the will or desire to participate in doing some elementary assessment on projects in the territory. In the end, however, it was the federal bureaucracy that made the final decisions, regardless of some of the points raised by those participants. The point is our frustration with the one seat afforded a very significant portion of the population of the territory at the time, in particular a population base that was more directly affected by most of these projects.

    You must recall the long-term history of the Yukon Territory and the north at large, of natural resource based extraction on a large scale in most cases, or they are smaller operations but there are many of them. This is where the development assessment negotiations led to cumulative effects, a key feature of this bill, something that was very innovative at the time and that is now being more seriously considered by other similar bills throughout the country.

    We also have to recognize that this bill also advances the first nations' position to incorporate traditional knowledge and understanding of the land into contemporary processes of land management and assessments, particularly on projects. This has been a long-standing desire not only of our own people, but also of many of the scientific and academic people, who wanted to make sure that the observations of our people, which are very real, are brought to bear when we're trying to determine the potential effects of large projects. We also moved from a position where we had very limited influence as a people on assessments of projects to a position where we have legislative standing as holders of government.

    I recognize that after all the presentations and the dialogue throughout the course of the years, not everybody is 100% satisfied with the final bill. I'm sure that as parliamentarians you would recognize that is always the case. We will never see the ultimate bill that every single person in this country is going to be 100% satisfied with. When that day happens, then indeed miracles do happen.

    Nonetheless, I think there has been a great effort on the part of many of the first nations, those that have just made their presentations as well as those within the council, to put all the issues on the table, along with the other orders of government, including the municipalities. I recognize their concerns, as a person who cut his teeth on municipal politics. Rest assured that the municipal level does have its guaranteed decision-making processes within the Municipal Act. I don't believe this bill does anything to displace those responsibilities or authorities of local governments. Indeed, I think it's there to help complement them.

    I do know that a the number of concerns have been expressed, and I share one that was made by an earlier representative. In 1993 we concluded the UFA. This was supposed to be concluded within two years of the effective date of that agreement. We're long past that date, of course. We had a full expectation at the time that all of our nations would have concluded their land claims and self-government agreements and we'd all be on the road to implementation and developing a new relationship and a very innovative and meaningful partnership between Canada, the territory, and the first nations. Of course, we do not find ourselves at this juncture today. It's unfortunate, because it does interfere with our ability to move forward.

  (1225)  

    Indeed, the CYFN, the Council of Yukon First Nations, represents 11 first nations communities. These 11 first nations communities have mandated, through successive resolutions throughout the years, for the progression of this piece of legislation. Indeed, the 11 aboriginal communities constitute the vast majority of the actual lands contemplated being covered by this legislation. We welcome the opportunity and continue to endorse the advancement of this piece of legislation.

    We have also tried, to the best extent possible, to build in the necessary flexibility within this legislation for its natural evolution over time. We recognize that all pieces of law, particularly today, are not cast in stone. As an evolving society, our laws need to evolve with us. We believe this flexibility is in this legislation.

    We also recognize that there are some concerns that are better placed in the realm of discussion in the regulation and policy side of the bill, as opposed to the actual bill itself. This provides some of the necessary flexibility required by governments and the general public for its manoeuvrability and adaptation, as I indicated.

    By and large, I think it's a good bill. Considering where we started from many years ago, with very little say whatsoever on even the most minute projects within our region, this bill provides us with the legislative participation that was originally conceived in chapter 12. It was a hard-fought process. It's not completed yet. Nonetheless, we have submitted our written material for the members here.

    I just wanted to provide this overview, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank you all for the opportunity. I'm prepared for any questions.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Now we will return to the Yukon for the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope) and its chair, Lindsay Staples.

    Mr. Staples, a five-minute presentation, please.

    Mr. Lindsay Staples (Chair, Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope)): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you members for the opportunity to present to you today. Today I'm here appearing on behalf of the Environmental Impact Screening Committee, the Environmental Impact Review Board, and of course the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope), of which I am chair.

    All of these bodies were established under the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement, and all of these bodies have responsibilities that pertain to the Yukon North Slope, a portion of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

    The concern that our three groups have with respect to this legislation is specific to clause 90, which deals with projects on the Yukon North Slope, and by way of background, in 1984 the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, through the establishment of the Environmental Impact Screening Committee and the review board, in other words, through the establishment of an assessment process, provided for the review of development activities on the Yukon North Slope.

    This is an area that is the exclusive traditional territory of the Inuvialuit. Since 1984, over the last 18 years, the screening committee and the review board have essentially assessed and reviewed hundreds of screenings across the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, many of these pertaining to oil and gas exploration, seismic programs, and so on.

    I think it's fair to say that the record of these assessments and of this review over the course of the last 18 years, in the view of industry and in the view of government, has been an expeditious process, it's been fair-minded, and it's been conclusive. The concern that our three bodies have with this legislation is that it essentially introduces a duplicate process for environmental screening on the Yukon North Slope. This has been a concern that we've had since 1996 and it remains a concern for us today.

    The response to this issue from those involved with YESAA, the current proposed legislation, has been that there will not be a duplication of process because the screening processes established under the IFA, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, and YESAA are different. For example, the Environmental Impact Screening Committee under the IFA does not take into consideration socio-economic effects of proposed developments, and the Environmental Impact Screening Committee does not currently recommend terms and conditions for developments that they screen.

    We acknowledge the validity of these examples. However, we believe that potential developers will be faced with two separate yet very similar screening processes, and we believe this is an inefficient coordination of process. We believe more effort should be made to resolve this issue prior to the legislation becoming entrenched.

    So our concern focuses in clause 90 explicitly on duplicate screening, that there are two entry points for proponents, that there will be duplicate information, and the question we have is why are we legislating duplication?

    Our committees in the Inuvialuit...and I should add that these committees, as members, have representatives of the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Inuvialuit people. These are what we call joint committees. A number of these committees have spent a great deal of time over the last two years working to have a coordinated, harmonized environmental assessment process up and down the McKenzie Valley, for the obvious reason that a harmonized process is going to be an efficient process.

    With respect to the plans that the oil and gas industry has in the McKenzie Valley for the construction of a pipeline, a harmonized process across jurisdictions, across land claim settlement regions, makes perfect sense. There's been a great deal of concern expressed by the federal government over the history of those discussions that a failure to arrive at a harmonized process would provide an unwieldy and perhaps unworkable experience for those who have to go through it.

  (1235)  

    The YESAA process, as we understand it, could still lead to a panel review while the environmental screening committee may allow the same project to proceed to screening. How likely is this situation? There is a concern that a screening process under YESAA and a screening process under the IFA may result in two very different findings. And the question for proponents and the question for decision-makers--responsible authority--is how do they handle two disparate results?

    How likely is this situation? Ultimately, assessments are value-based as much as they're anything else. They're about establishing levels of comfort. They're about establishing probability and risk. But when one looks at all of the institutions and processes that have been established over the last 18 years under the IFA--our research programs, the involvement of hunters and trappers committees, the use of local knowledge, the development of GIS systems--all of these provide information to the Environmental Impact Screening Committee.

    The burden to provide the same information to the YESAA board, in a designated office, outside of the region, could be highly problematic.

    As well, what is the standing of the Inuvialuit interests and rights at this point? Their treatment falls into a process that is other than the one they negotiated for the purpose of considering and protecting these rights under their land claims agreement.

    Environmental assessment processes are cultural-based assessments as much as they're anything else. I'm not suggesting that with either the YESAA process or the IFA-based screening and review process, one is more or less rigorous than the other. But these processes do provide a level of comfort about how sensitive they are to the rights of those people with whom they're dealing and whose rights they are there to protect.

    In the Inuvialuit, I think it's fair to say all our committees have a strong concern that their rights may not be fully respected, fully protected, notwithstanding assurances in the proposed bill to the contrary--that their rights and interests will be understood by a board, essentially, that is being imposed on their region from outside the region.

    The Chair: Mr. Staples, you're over seven minutes. Please go to the conclusion.

    Mr. Lindsay Staples: In conclusion, we would recommend legislative equivalence in the proposed bill. YESAA should recognize that the Environmental Impact Screening Committee should be and ought to be a designated office for the Yukon North Slope with continued provision for referrals to the Environmental Impact Review Board.

    Insofar as the YESAA requirements are for a more rigorous and comprehensive process than the older requirements of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the legislation could include provisions adding broader powers to the screening committee and the review board regime. This would give those bodies equivalence with respect to the requirements of DAP.

    I would just like to say in closing that I will be providing a formal written submission to you later today. And I understand you're going to be receiving later this week a submission from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now we'll go to the first round of questioning, a four-minute round.

    Therefore, Mr. Vellacott, you get five.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If someone from the Kwanlin Dun First Nation could respond on this one, it would just help me get the connection here. Someone had made the comment that first nations with final agreements in place are favourable to Bill C-2, but because you do not have a final agreement in place, you're not. So make clear or explicit for me what's the connection between having a final agreement favouring or not favouring Bill C-2.

    Somebody from Kwanlin Dun First Nation.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Mike Smith: Thank you very much. If you review the data it speaks clearly to the involvement of the parties to the UFA. It speaks to the CYFN, the Yukon Government, and Canada as being the three parties that will be implementing this new act. We are totally ignored in this. We're not going to be involved in the implementation as one of the parties to this agreement.

    We are quite concerned that this leaves us out of the whole consultation process on the development of the rules and regulations. We're quite concerned that any meetings we do have with the parties--Canada, Yukon, or the CYFN--would be meaningless unless we have some assurances in the bill that would include us. So we're quite concerned about that.

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome our witnesses today.

    On the same point, basically, if you feel that assessments shouldn't take place until you have a final agreement, other than what you have just said, what are the pitfalls, and what are your options? In other words, will you be taking it to the courts, if that is an option?

    Mr. Mike Smith: As you have heard, we do not have a final agreement. We do not have a land claims agreement with Canada, and the common law is really quite clear with respect to governments dealing with first nations who have aboriginal title. We believe the courts are the last resort if we can't come to some understanding on this. While we're not in support of the bill, we're suggesting a couple of points that would really speak to direct consultation with Kwanlin Dun and other first nations who are not party to the UFA. That is the gist of the amendments that we want to make.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Again, I repeat, you are saying it's sort of like putting the cart before the horse, before you have your claim settled.

    In the event that your claim is not settled, and that is the current situation, what in your mind is the huge disadvantage of going through an assessment process without a settled claim?

    Mr. Mike Smith: The fact that we don't have a settled claim basically doesn't provide us a role to participate in the review or in the implementation of CEAA, of this new bill. We feel that in many respects it is putting the cart before the horse, because unless we are party to the land claims agreement and party to the UFA, we don't have any meaningful role in this whole process.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Has the council or the federal government offered you a role to play, even without a claim being settled?

    Mr. Mike Smith: There's no specific offer of any role, other than the fact of calling meetings, or having a meeting to consult us on any appointments or on the regulations. No formal process has been established to include us in the whole process.

    Mr. Inky Mark: So what do you intend as your next step to ensure that you have a role to play in this process?

    Mr. Mike Smith: It's pretty obvious that we're trying to conclude a land claims agreement. We're trying to make provisions to include Kwanlin Dun to become party to the overall settlement. However, in the meantime we have problems, because if you were to read the details, especially with the exclusion of municipal planning...which directly affects Kwanlin Dun, because we're right in the city of Whitehorse, the municipality that does planning, and their planning process is excluded from this bill. We're saying one of the main causes of effects on the environment will be the development that is happening around and in the municipality of Whitehorse, and this is excluded. So there is no forum for us to participate in a meaningful way, even if this bill is passed.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: I just want to start with a comment. One of the interveners brought up the five-year review--I think it was Mr. Smith--and I think a couple of other interveners, the conservation society and the mining association, will bring that up as well. My understanding is that that is mandated in the UFA, which is senior legislation, so that review will be done, which would solve the concern of those interveners.

    My question is probably for Ed Schultz, but it is related to Lindsay Staples' presentation. As you know, Yukoners should have a say in what happens with lands in the Yukon and are very concerned about effects of things in and near the Yukon. Of course, this claim is in the Yukon. A lot of the supplies are trucked through the Dempster, and lots of things on development may go through the Yukon, so obviously they have to have a say.

    I'd like to ask Mr. Schultz if he thinks Yukoners are sufficiently represented now in that area by this present plan, but more importantly, in the concept where Lindsay Staples has suggested a change to it, would Yukoners still be sufficiently represented? It seems to me that by making the designated office, if I understood him correctly, of that particular board, it would no longer be a board with a majority of Yukoners. Of course, we have an adjacent first nation, too, the Vuntut Gwitchin. So I'm not sure that our input and our say would then be sufficient, and I'm curious as to Mr. Schultz's view of that.

  (1245)  

    Grand Chief Ed Schultz: If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. Stephen Mills, who is one of our principal negotiators with the council. Perhaps he could respond to that query.

    The Chair: Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Stephen Mills (Chief Negotiator, Council of Yukon First Nations): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    With regard to the comments made by Mr. Staples, I think there are a few realities we have to look at. The first one is that the UFA did not exempt the YESAA from the North Slope. That's the first point. The second point is that the Inuvialuit agreements that established these various resource councils put a limited amount of authority within each of these councils, the review boards, and everything else on the North Slope.

    One of the suggestions was that we look at adding some additional responsibilities and giving them status under this piece of legislation in order to broaden their mandate. That is a question that would have to be posed to the Government of Canada, whether or not through other pieces of legislation you can change the jurisdiction of boards established under the UFA, another land claim agreement. There's the matter of whether you are willing to expand their mandates and responsibilities beyond what was provided for in their own agreements.

    I realize that there is some difficulty with regard to the North Slope and the fit between the various agreements. But the reality is that projects that occur on the North Slope could have impacts in the Yukon.

    The type of assessment that's done under YESAA is much broader. It looks at additional factors, including some of the social impacts of particular projects. So there are some fairly big differences between these two assessment processes.

    The only thing that could be done would be to give them the ability to work with other bodies for the purpose of joint assessment or other things. But this would require changes to the Inuvialuit agreement. Our legislation gives us that ability. The problem is that the Inuvialuit agreement does not give them the ability to do that. Some of the suggestions may be very good ones, but we also have to realize that we have to protect the interests of Yukon first nations with regard to the Yukon.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Are there other questions from any member on any side?

    You have a total of two minutes, Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: I have a question for Mike Smith. I know that you never have enough time, so I'm using my question to give you some more time. In your presentation, I think it was in the sentence before the one where you talked about the Regulatory Advisory Committee, you mentioned the actual technical problems you had with the legislation. I know you had to rush through it, but I didn't catch all of the specific provisions where you had a technical problem. Maybe you could just review those and say what you would have liked to say on them if you had had more time.

  (1250)  

    Mr. Mike Smith: As requested by the chair, following this meeting we will be sending copies to you, and you'll then have the full text.

    I just want to respond quickly to one of the points you made with regard to the review process. We find the review process under the bill to be quite narrow and not as broad and inclusive as the proposals under CEAA. We feel that in many respects this bill limits itself to the UFA, and as a result, the process set up for reviewing consultation is quite narrow. We want to broaden that. Clearly, we think it should be more inclusive and that the the Yukon public should be invited to participate in the review.

    Looking at this whole process, we speak to two points. One, we would like to see this process happen and a broader review more in line with what is under the current CEAA. Second, we want to have a very specific amendment to include first nations without agreements in the whole development process of the regulations. We don't want to see simply the CYI participating with government officials in developing those without our participation. That's clearly what we want to say.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bagnell. You started something.

    Now I have Mr. Mark, Mr. St. Denis, Ms. Karetak-Lindell. Mr. Mark, you have two minutes.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have a short question to our witnesses from the Yukon. Mayor Everitt indicated in his comments that this process has been taking place for a long time and he felt that municipalities should be one of the principal stakeholders in this act. Do you or do you not agree with him?

    Mr. Mike Smith: As Kwanlin Dun, we're in the process of developing a government-to-government relationship with the City of Whitehorse, which is a municipality. We have no objections to their asking for more participation rights in this whole process. I feel, for the most part, that Kwanlin Dun does not object to a process that includes more involvement, that comes up with a panel of review that is broader in scope, and that will take into consideration all the issues that Yukon people have. I have no objections whatever to what Mr. Everitt's saying.

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

    My question is more on the duplication concerns, because I also sit on the environment committee and I know we talk a lot about different processes and whether those would cause duplication of a process. I was listening to Mr. Mills' answer to some of the concerns with the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

    My first question, then, would be to the representative of the wildlife management, Mr. Staples. In light of the answer by Mr. Mills that the scope would be wider in that they also talk about the social impacts, do you still think there would be increased duplication with the explanation from Mr. Mills that there is a wider scope? Are you still concerned there would be duplication even though the scope would be wider?

    Mr. Lindsay Staples: Thank you for the question.

    Absolutely, I believe there will be duplication. This has been a concern we've had for going on six years now. It is a given that there will be two entry points for proponents taking their projects. That in itself, I think, will lead to confusion.

    Secondly, I think the point needs to be made in terms of the interests of Yukoners. If there's any suggestion somehow that Yukoners' interests are not represented on the Environmental Impact Screening Committee, I would take great exception to that. Because for the last 18 years the Yukon has had a government representative sitting on that committee representing the interests of the Yukon government on behalf of Yukon people. I think it should be clearly understood there is a public interest that is being served by that representation on that committee.

    With respect to the scope of the responsibilities of the two committees, clearly there is a difference. The screening committee under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement currently is only permitted to look at matters relating to environmental effects and assessing their significance, unlike the DAP bodies that also can look at socio-economic effects.

    But notwithstanding that, over the course of the last 18 years, the screening committee and the review board of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement have been involved, for instance, with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency looking at means--administrative means and others--to indeed expand the scope of their considerations to bring their deliberations into harmony with CEAA. So I would suggest that the fact the agreement was signed in 1984 and the theory and the practice of environmental assessment clearly has evolved over the last 18 years, there is no reason why--

  (1255)  

    The Chair: Excuse me, I must interrupt. We're over three minutes.

    I will go to Mr. St. Denis for his two minutes. After that I will allow Chief Rick O'Brien and Grand Chief Ed Schultz each three minutes for closing remarks.

    But first we'll go to Mr. St. Denis for two minutes.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, I have a short question to Ms. Blair-Smith. I believe you represent the White River First Nation, am I correct?

    Ms. Rose-Marie Blair-Smith: Yes.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: You mentioned that your community is one of the six first nations that do not have a final agreement yet under the Umbrella Final Agreement. I believe you said that you have a MOU, but I'm wondering if you could explain very briefly a couple of the concerns that have thus far prevented your community from concluding a final agreement. I took it that you have some issues yet, unless I misunderstood you.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Rose-Marie Blair-Smith: The most important issue for us is getting a final agreement. Having a final agreement is the order of business of the White River First Nation. We feel that the DAP process undermines our process to negotiate the best deal. If we don't get a final agreement, or rather, if the process goes ahead without our final agreement, we believe that it will fundamentally....

    If the DAP process goes ahead, we believe that it's a fundamental breach in terms of what our business was to get our final agreement. You're asking what are my feelings, and as a member of the White River First Nation, definitely I can say that 100% of our membership believes that the process for us is to get a final agreement. We want to ratify; we feel that the process will not help us, because the government will all be busy with making their process, which is DAP. They gain much more than we do, and we feel that their energies will be concentrated on the DAP process and we will, as a signatory to the UFA, be left again out in the cold. And that's our main beef with the DAP process.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now, Chief Rick O'Brien, closing remarks, please, for three minutes.

    Chief Rick O'Brien: Again, on behalf of the first nations that are here, I'd like to thank you for allowing us time to present our disappointment in the bill. We're all happy that you know that all Yukon first nations do not support this bill in its present state.

    Again, we are a first nation with full section 35 rights under the Canadian Constitution, and Canada must deal with us on a government-to-government basis. We believe in working together, and we've been working with the City of Whitehorse. We believe that the City of Whitehorse will be excluded in this process, and we'd like to continue working together with the City of Whitehorse. So being a first nation in the centre of a municipality, we'd like to keep this process and bring the City of Whitehorse on board with us to work.

    There are serious flaws to this bill, as you know, and that's why we're here; otherwise, we wouldn't be here. Again, I believe we are putting the horse before the carriage. Notwithstanding that this is an essential bill and it should go forward at some point, I believe it shouldn't at this point, because some of us are still working on our land claims agreement. Perhaps we could look at some innovative ways where the people who want it can put it together in their own traditional territory, but for the people who are not settled, maybe we should look at accommodating them somewhat. We don't want to hold anybody hostage, yet we don't want to be put behind the eight ball, also, by the same token.

    So with that, I'd like to again thank you guys for allowing us this time. Thank you.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now for the last word, Grand Chief Ed Schultz.

    Grand Chief Ed Schultz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to say, in addition, thank you to all the people who made a presentation to the standing committee.

    As I can sincerely appreciate your point of view as parliamentarians, from my own experience, it's a difficult task to try to come to a balanced decision that meets all the needs of all the various interests that are out there. But I want to emphasize also that all first nations in this country have section 35 rights, regardless of whether they have entered into treaties or not. Those are standing rights, and reaffirmed, under the Canadian Constitution.

    But there are nations that have advanced in our region, eight of them within the Council of Yukon First Nations, under a self-government system, a new system of governance, of governments, that have a real relationship, a meaningful relationship, with Canada and with the territories and with other first nations in the region. The challenge for the Council of Yukon First Nations is the fact that we have so many nations, both within the council and outside of the council, that are still trying to get to their ultimate end.

    We don't have any problem with some of the recommendations that have necessarily been brought forward, although we don't necessarily believe they all should be incorporated into the legislation itself. As I articulated earlier, I think some of that is better dealt with in the subsequent regulations, policies, and implementation plans. All first nations will be afforded the opportunity and funding, as I understand it, to participate in those processes, and all levels of government.

    I think also, as one looks at the overall draft, it is looking at a staged implementation to the legislation, and maybe that can be adjusted enough to accommodate all parties concerned. That said, however, it is imperative and ultimately important for our first nations that are self-governing to have this legislation in effect as soon as possible. It coincides with the other processes and regimes established under their final and self-government agreements for land and resource management. Without it, they are stuck with the old processes that don't necessarily respect what has already been made a commitment by Canada and those first nations. That would therefore tarnish the relationship, the early new relationship that we are trying to develop in a positive light between Canada and our people.

    We recognize that there is a long history between ourselves, and some of it has been less than satisfactory from both parties' perspectives. We have looked at these new arrangements as the new future, the new change for our relationship, a measure of reconciliation that is substantive in the detail of the documents themselves, such as the development assessment, which has now evolved to YESAA.

    Therefore, I thank the committee for this opportunity.

    [Witness speaks in his native language]

    The Chair: Thank you very much. I know that I speak for all members when I say that all the presentations, both by video conference and in person, were excellent. I'm very impressed. You stuck to the issue before us, and by doing that, you are helping us to do our work. So you can pat yourselves on the back, all of you; your presentations were excellent. Thank you very much.

    Before we adjourn, colleagues, we'll meet you in Room 536 Wellington at 3:30, after the vote.

    Thank you very much, everyone. This meeting is adjourned.