sahtu-hrg-may-3-11 - Sahtu Land Use Planning Board

Page 112345678910111213141516171819202122232425SAHTU LAND USE PLANNING BOARDPUBLIC HEARINGre: Draft 3 of the PlanPanel Members:Judith Wright-Bird ChairpersonDanny BayhaCo-ChairpersonStephen Kakfwi MemberColin BayhaMemberBob OveroldMemberHELD IN:Norman Wells, NWTMay 3rd, 2011Day 1 of 3

Page 212345678910111213141516171819202122232425APPEARANCESDick Spaulding)Board CounselHeidi Wiebe)Board StaffEdna Tobac )Ida Mak )Joel Ashworth )Benita King )Joanne Barnaby) FacilitatorDeborah Simmons) FacilitatorFrederick Andrew)Tulita Renewable Resources)CouncilChris Hopkins)Sahtu Renewable ResourcesAndrea Hrynkiw)BoardPaul Dixon)Sahtu Land & Water BoardAngela Love )Crystal Thomas )Russell Kenny)Deline Renewable Resources)Council

Page 312345678910111213141516171819202122232425APPEARANCES (cont'd)Roger Odgard)Norman Wells LandRuby MacDonald)CorporationDudley Johnson )Town of Norman WellsJulie Brown )Frank Pope )Chief Richard Kochon)Ayoni Keh' LandJoseph Kochon)CorporationChief Arthur Tobac)K'asho Got'ine CharterElder Gabriel Kochon)CommunityHeather Bourassa)K'asho Got'ine Lands)CorporationRoger Boniface)Fort Good Hope Renewable)Resources CouncilJaime Masazumi)Fort Good Hope Metis)Nation Local 54 Land Corp.George Barnaby)Yamoga Land CorporationHarry Harris )

Page 412345678910111213141516171819202122232425APPEARANCES (cont'd)Lucy Jackson )Antoine Tobac )Peter T'Seleie, Jr. )Isidore Manual )Grand Chief Frank Andrew )Sahtu Dene CouncilWade Karkague )Tulita Dene BandArsenne Menacho)Tulita Land and FinancialElder Maurice Mendo)CorporationDouglas Yallee )Leon Andrew )Joel Holder)ENR - GNWTAlasdair Veitch )Mark Warren )Heather Sayine-Crawford )Andy Short)ITI - GNWTBarry Harley)MACCA - GNWTTeresa Joudrie)INACScott Duke)INAC Legal CounselGreg Yeomon )

Page 512345678910111213141516171819202122232425APPEARANCES (cont'd)Matt Bender)INACArthur Boutilier )Ethel Blondin-Andrew)SSIJohn Donihee)SSI Legal CounselPatrick Duxbury )Chief Raymond Tutcho)Deline First NationsRaymond Taniton )Elder Andrew John Kenny )Peter Menacho)Deline Land CorporationTom Nesbitt)Legal CounselLorien Nesbitt )John Yukon )Harold Grinde)Association of Mackenzie)Mountain OutfittersAdam Vivian)NWT & Nunavut Chamber of)MinesAngus Lennie)Selwyn Chihong Mining Ltd.Michael Cunningham )

Page 612345678910111213141516171819202122232425APPEARANCES (cont'd)Rita Clair)Eagle Plain ResourcesAaron Higgs )Paul Latour)Environment Canada and)Canadian Wildlife ServiceTrevor Sinclair )Department of Fisheries and)OceansLee Montgomery)Parks CanadaDolphus Baton)Charter Community of)DelineDyanne Doctor)Fort Norman Metis LandLori Ann Lennie)CorporationRichard Edjericon)MVEIRBJason Charlwood)Ducks Unlimited CanadaElder JB Gully)Behdzi Ahda' First NationElder Hyacinthe Kochon )

Page 712345678910111213141516171819202122232425Willard HagenAPPEARANCES (cont'd))MVLWB

Page 812345678910111213141516171819202122232425TABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.List of Undertakings 9Opening Comments 10Opening Comments by the Host Community: Normal Wells 20Presentation by Sahtu Land Use Planning Board 36Presentation by SSI 59Question Period 77Presentation by Fort Good Hope 117Question Period 135Presentation by Colville Lake 141Question Period 149Presentation by Norman Wells 155Question Period 165Presentation by Tulita 173Question Period 185Presentation by Deline 191Question Period 223Certificate of Transcript 229

Page 912345678910111213141516171819202122232425LIST OF UNDERTAKINGSNO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.1 For SSI to provide more clarificationre: identifying which authorizationin the Board's list are administrativein nature and do not relate in anyway to granting the right to aninterest in land or authorize theconservation, development, or useof land, waters, or other resources 79

Page 1012345678910111213141516171819202122232425--- Upon commencing at 9:28 a.m.THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We're ready tobegin, so I'll ask our, Elder Maurice Mendo, from Tulitato do the opening prayer.(OPENING PRAYER)THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So I'd liketo welcome everyone, and thank you for coming to theSahtu Land Use Planning Board -- Board's public hearingon Draft 3 of the Sahtu Land Use Plan.And I'm going to start by introducing theBoard members. So there's myself, Judith Wright-Bird.I'm the Chair of the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board. I'vebeen nominated for -- by the four (4) members standing ofthe Board. I was appointed in June 2005, and serving mysecond term. I also work as the executive director forTulita Land Corporation, and previous to that I was aband manager at -- working for the Tulita Dene Band, andworked on the PAS Tulita Conservation Initiative, as wellas the Naats'ihch'oh Park, and SGN when it first started.And then we have Steve Kakfwi. He's theSSI nominee. He -- he's been a Board member sinceJanuary 2009, and served as the president of Dene Nation.

Page 1112345678910111213141516171819202122232425He served four (4) terms in a territorial legislative inCabinet, was the Premier of the NWT from 1999 to 2003,and recently served as senior advisor on the NWT issueswith WWF Canada, the North's representative on theFederal Government's round table on the environment andthe economy, and assisting the Canadian Boreal Initiativeon conservation initiatives in the NWT.And then we have Bob Overvold. He's anINAC nominee. Board member since May 2008. Has servedas chief negotiator for Dene Metis Comprehensive LandClaim. Previous Dep -- Deputy Minister ofIntergovernmental Aboriginal Affairs. Sits on the Dehcholand use planning committee as the federalrepresentative. Currently serves as the ministerialspecial representative for INAC on overlap issues in thesouthern end of Luti (phonetic).Colin Bayha, SSI nominee. Born -- boardmember since April, 2007. Colin is serving his secondconsecutive term. Currently sits on the Deline LandCorporation as a board member. Currently works for theDeline Renewable Resource Council as the office manager.And Danny Bayha. Danny will act as cochairfor this hearing. Danny's term expired April 30th,2011, and the Board has requested his re-appointment.He's a GNWT nominee and been a Board member since April

Page 12123456789101112131415161718192021222324252008. He has acted as the Vice-Chair sitting on Land UsePlanning Board.In the past, Danny has served as a bandcouncillor in Deline, and as a member of the localeducation council. Current member -- Board member on theDeline Land Corporation, and Board member on MVEIRB sinceOctober 2000. Danny is here to listen to everyone'sfeedback in anticipation of his re-appointment.And then we have our legal counsel, DickSpaulding. Dick has been the legal advisor to planningbodies in Nunavut and the Dehcho region. He advisesNunavut Inuit regarding the act of Parliament that wasintroduced last year to serve Nunavut in the same waythat the Mackenzie Valley Renew -- Resource ManagementAct serves the NWT.Dick will be helping the Board to answeryour questions this week about legal issues. The Boardhas also asked Dick to make comments that help to clarifythe legal basis of the Plan, and to ask questions thathelp to clarify the legal basis of your submissions.And then I'd like to have -- to introduceour staff. Going to introduce yourselves?MS. DEBORAH SIMMONS: I'm DeborahSimmons, and I'm working with Joanne Barnaby as a cofacilitatorat the workshop part of this, and also will

Page 1312345678910111213141516171819202122232425be taking notes on some of the main messages for --during the sessions today and tomorrow morning.MS. JOANNE BARNABY: I'll talk loudbecause this is not working anyway. I'm Joanne Barnaby.It's good to be back in the Sahtu region, and I lookforward to the coming week.MS. EDNA TOBAC: Good morning. My nameis Edna Tobac. I'm the executive director for the SahtuLand Use Planning Board.MS. IDA MAK: Ida Mak. I'm thecommunications coordinator and planner with the SahtuLand Use Planning Board.MS. BENITA KING: I'm so shy. BenitaKing. I'm the office manager for Sahtu Land Use PlanningBoard.MS. HEIDI WIEBE: And I'm Heidi Wiebe.I'm the senior planner with the Sahtu Land Use PlanningBoard.MR. JOEL ASHWORTH: And I'm JoelAshworth. I do GIS and mapping for the Sahtu Land UsePlanning Board.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: So now I'd like to go

Page 1412345678910111213141516171819202122232425around the table, and invite the different participantsto say their name and what organization you'rerepresenting. And if you have more delegates, if youcould introduce the rest of your delegates. We'll startwith Julie.(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. RODGER ODGARD: Hi. Roger Odgard.I'm representing Norman Wells Land Corporation.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (NATIVE LANGUAGESPOKEN).(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. ROGER BONIFACE: Roger Boniface, fromFort Good Hope. (INDISCERNIBLE).MR. JAMIE MASAZUMI: James Masazumi,representing Fort Good Hope Metis Local Land Corp.MR. GEORGE BARNABY: George Barnaby, withthe Yamoga Land Corporation.MS. HEATHER BOURASSA: Heather Bourassa,representing the K'asho Got'ine District LandCorporation.CHIEF ARTHUR TOBAC: Good morning. My

Page 1512345678910111213141516171819202122232425name is Arthur Tobac. I'll be speaking on --representing the K'asho Got'ine Charter Community andDene band.MR. JOEL HOLDER: Good morning. I'm JoelHolder with the GNWT and (INDISCERNIBLE).MR. MARK WARREN: Good morning. I'm MarkWarren. I'm Assistant Deputy Minister for Environmentand Natural Resources, representing the GNWT(INDISCERNIBLE).MR. GREG YEOMON: Hello. Hi, my name'sGreg Yeomon. I'm with Indian and Northern Affairs Canadain Yellowknife.MS. TERESA JOUDRIE: Good morning. I'mTeresa Joudrie. I'm with Indian and Northern AffairsCanada in Yellowknife.MR. MATT BENDER: Good morning, everyone.I am Matt Bender, also with INAC, based in Ottawa.MR. PATRICK DUXSBURY: Good morning. I'mPat Duxbury. I'm a consultant for SSI.MR. JOHN DONIHEE: My name is JohnDonihee. I'm counsel for SSI for (INDISCERNIBLE).MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: I'm EthelBlondin-Andrew, the Chair for SSI.CHIEF FRANK ANDREW: I'm Chief FrankAndrew. I'm (INDISCERNIBLE) also a band chief for the

Page 1612345678910111213141516171819202122232425Sahtu region.MR. TOM NESBITT: Hi, I'm Tom Nesbitt,and I'm a lawyer (INDISCERNIBLE) Deline Land Corporation,the First Nation (INDISCERNIBLE) counsel.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE).MR. PETER MENACHO: Good morning, PeterMenacho, President for the Deline Land Corporation, alsoVice Chairman for the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated.MR. RAYMOND TANITON: Raymond Taniton,representing Deline First Nation.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE).MR. WADE KARKAGUE: Wade Karkague, withthe Tulita Dene band.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning,(INDISCERNIBLE).UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE).(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM: I'm MichaelCunningham, of the Selwyn Chihong Mining Limited. Alongwith me is Angus Lennie, also working with Selwyn ChihongMining Limited.MS. ANGELA LOVE: Angela Love, from theSahtu Land and Water Board.

Page 1712345678910111213141516171819202122232425MR. PAUL DIXON: Paul Dixon, also fromthe Sahtu Land and Water Board.MS. CRYSTAL THOMAS: Crystal Thomas, alsofrom Sahtu Land and Water Board.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE).MR. MAURICE MENDO: My name is MauriceMendo, from Tulita.MR. LEON ANDREW: Leon Andrew, from Tulita(INDISCERNIBLE).MS. DYANNE DOCTOR: Dyanne Doctor,representing Fort Norman Metis Land Corporation.MS. LORI-ANN LENNIE: Lori-Ann Lennie,with the Fort Norman Metis.MR. JOHN YUKON: John Yukon, Deline LandCorp.MR. JOSEPH KOCHON: Joseph Kochon, DelineFirst Nation.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE).MS. LORIEN NESBITT: Good morning. I'mLorien Nesbitt. (INDISCERNIBLE) and consultant providingtechnical support to the Deline Land Corporation.MR. RUSSELL KENNY: Russell Kenny, Deline(INDISCERNIBLE).MR. SCOTT DUKE: Scott Duke, legalcounsel for INAC.

Page 1812345678910111213141516171819202122232425MR. ARTHUR BOUTILIER: Arthur Boutilier,(INDISCERNIBLE).MR. KENNY SHAE: Kenny Shae, sound tech.MR. ARON ELTON: Aron Elton, sound tech.MS. DORA GRANDJAMBE: Dora Grandjambe,interpreter.MR. MICHAEL NEYELLE: Michael Neyelle,interpreter.MR. JOE GRANDJAMBE: Good morning. We'rethe back-benchers in support of our leaders up here. Myname is Joe Grandjambe. I'm one of the directors for theYamoga Land Corporation.MR. PAUL T'SELEIE: Paul T'seliei. I'm aYamoga Land Corporation director too.MS. LUCY JACKSON: Lucy Jackson, LandCorporation, from Fort Good Hope.MS. ANDREA HRYNKIW: Andrea Hrynkiw,Sahtu Renewable Resources Corp.MR. PAUL LATOUR: Paul Latour,Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service.MS. HEATHER SAYINE-CRAWFORD: HeatherSayine-Crawford. (INDISCERNIBLE) in Sahtu for ENR.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning,(INDISCERNIBLE) ENR, Sahtu, biologist.MR. TREVOR SINCLAIR: Good morning. I'm

Page 1912345678910111213141516171819202122232425Trevor Sinclair, with the Department of Fisheries andOceans.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE)Yellowknife.MR. ANDY SHORT: Hi, I'm Andy Short, andI'm the superintendent of ITI here in the Sahtu region.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE)Land Corp. in the Sahtu region.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE)with the Land Corporation.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE).UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (INDISCERNIBLE)Land Corp.THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So therehas been two (2) requests for -- for changes to theagenda in the last few days. SSI requested an earlypresentation on day 1, as their chair needs to leavelater during the day. We asked Deline's legal counsel ifDeline would mind switching with SSI as -- as the -- theeasiest way to accommodate this request. He agreed, andthis switch is reflected in your agenda already.A second request was raised by Deline onFriday afternoon to have communities present last.Deline has since then retracted that request.Finally, following each presentation the

Page 2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425agenda identifies time for questions and comments. This-- it's the Board's intent to allow both questions andcomments following each presentation.Are there any other further requests forchanges or clarifications on the agenda?(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: If there isn't any,then we have Ethel Blondin-Andrew who's going to do theopening for the host community.(BRIEF PAUSE)OPENING COMMENTS BY HOST COMMUNITY - NORMAL WELLS:MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: I just wantedto let you know that the mayor, Dudley Johnson, couldn'tbe here today, as well as Suze McCally (phonetic), who isthe president for the host land corporation. She's nothere today, and I know Roger is here in her stead.I've been asked to make welcoming remarks.It really should be Roger, because he's the one that didall the work on the land on self-government. He's beenone (1) of their negotiators.And I want to welcome everybody here from

Page 2112345678910111213141516171819202122232425the Sahtu region and from both levels of government, aswell as all the researchers and workers and legal counselthat are present.I also especially want to welcome any ofthe Elders that are here. There are people that havebeen working on this for a long, long time. I believeit's over thirteen (13) years, I think, if I'm notmistaken, and there's been a lot of work that has goneinto it. Of course there are people that are no longerhere that have worked very hard on this as well. So Ijust want to welcome everyone to Norman Wells.Welcome to our nice weather. It's typicalif you go spring hunting this -- this kind of weatherthat, you know, you run in and out of the tent coveredwith wetness and dry up and hug your ducks or whateveryou do.Mahsi, thank you for coming. We welcomeyou here.THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Hello, hello. Thisis Danny Bayha. I'm co-chairing this -- this hearing.I'm just going to be help -- helping Judith throughoutthe -- the hearing to hopefully make things go a littlebit smoother here.I'm just going to cover part of theagenda, opening remarks. I'm going to cover -- called

Page 2212345678910111213141516171819202122232425procedural matters, and there's about five (5) or six (6)bullet points that I need to go through just to clarifyto -- for everyone where we're at in terms of legalissues that we have.So the first one: When the Boardannounced their rescheduling public hearing we invitedthe parties to identify any comments that raised legalobjections to the scope of the Land Use Plan to statetheir objections and provide written comments.We received one (1) objection shared byINAC and the GNWT. SSI has filed a reply. The objectionis about whether the government department or agenciesmust follow the approved plan when it is performingfunctions other than regulating land use and grantinginterest in land. For example, Draft 3 contains actionsthat set requirements for government to make wildlifedata accessible or to work with communities to identifyways to partner in monitoring in enforcement activities.Both government state that they cannot be bound byactions.In response, the Board would like to sayfirst that it appreciates the efforts made by all counselin preparing their written arguments. The submissionsreceived have been very helpful.INAC and GNWT takes the position that

Page 2312345678910111213141516171819202122232425under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, thedepartment's agencies responsible to implement anapproved Land Use Plan need only to follow the Plan whenthey are performing regulatory functions or granting landinterest. SSI agrees with this.Draft 3 of the land -- of the Plan isbased on the opposite view. The departments and agenciesmust carry out any of their functions relating to landand water use in accordance with the Plan once it isapproved.When the Board invite writ -- invitedwritten comments, written arguments, we had intended torespond with our position on this question at this week'shearing. However, recognizing all three (3) signatoriesto the land claim disagree with the Board's currentinterpretation of the Mackenzie Valley ResourceManagement Act regarding actions, the Board has decidedto take time to review the written arguments and toadjust this week's agenda accordingly.When we discuss actions under Topic 2 onday 3 we will explore options for dealing with actions,other than treating them as mandatory. In addition todiscussing the main question posed in the hearingpackage, the Board will respond to the written argumentswithin a reasonable time after the hearing, with written

Page 2412345678910111213141516171819202122232425reasons.Next: Let me inform you of theunderstanding that the legal counsel who are taking partin these hearings have reached regarding how legal issueshave come up during the hearing should be handled. Wewant to focus on the content of the Land Use Plan in ourhearing, not on questions of law. All of us need to havea clear idea of the legal boundaries that the Sahtu LandClaim Agreement and the Mackenzie Valley ResourceManagement Act lay down for the content of the Plan.So if the law -- the lawyers present findthat they disagree about those boundaries, they willidentify the point of disagreement and state theirposition. Beyond that, counsel will confer separately,and after the hearing, to debate legal issues and lookfor solutions. The agenda does not include time forlegal argument.During the Board's pre-hearing conferenceon April 18th, three (3) questions were raised for whichthe Board was asked to respond. The Board made someadjustments to its agenda in response to these questions,and sent a written response to registered hearingparticipants on Friday. Additional com -- copies of theresponse are available from our staff, if you did notreceive it.

Page 2512345678910111213141516171819202122232425Also for your information, the Boardreceived one (1) written submission after April 21stdeadline that had been set for receipt of writtencomments. Copies of SSI comments received on April 28thare included in your hearing package. Unless anyoneobjects, the Board will waive the deadline in that case.And if there are any objections to thisBoard accepting the -- the submissions?(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: I take that as anay, so we'll -- if there are no objections, then thosecomments will be part of the hearing record. For anyonewho has not had a chance to read them, SSI can speak tothem during its presentation and question period.The final matter of procedure istimeliness. In your agenda, you will see time slotsgiven for each agenda item. The co-chairs will followthe time lines closely. If you find that a co-chair istelling you that you are out of time, and that the Boardhas to give the floor to another speaker, please keep inmind that we do this so that everyone have time to maketheir comments and ask their questions. We have a fullagenda this week, and this is the only way that the Board

Page 2612345678910111213141516171819202122232425can be fair to everyone.At this time, I would like to ask ifthere's any questions on this -- procedural matters.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: If not, I think wecan move on. Thank you.So I'll just move onto the housekeepingitems. Again, it's just part of our procedure to keepthings running as smooth as possible for everyone.This hearing forms part of the Board'spublic record. It is audio recorded and transcribed aswe have seen this morning. We are trying to be asefficient and -- as possible. To assist with accuratetranscriptions, please use the microphones. Again, stateyour name for the record so we know who is talking.This hearing is using simultaneoustranslation. Michael Neyelle and Dora Grandjambe will betranslating for us. Please remember to speak slowly andclearly and use plain language. Please regularly givethem a chance to catch up. If you are speaking too fast,we will stop you to ensure all participants get anaccurate translation.We have a very tight agenda, so we ask

Page 2712345678910111213141516171819202122232425everyone to show up on time every day.Please take a moment now, please, to turnoff all your cellphones and satellite phones, if youwill.Joanne or Debbie are -- are here asfacilitators for this hearing. During the presentations,they will be jotting down key messages on the flip chartsto assist us in framing discussions for the second halfof the hearing. Thank you.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: We are all here becausewe want to complete the Sahtu Land Use Plan. That is ourultimate goal. It is the Board's intent to complete thePlan this fiscal year.The Sahtu Land Use Plan has been almostfifteen (15) years in the making so far, but its historybegins long before that. The land use planning was firststarted in northern Canada in the 1970s in response tomajor resource development activities occurring at thattime. Key among these was the proposal for a MackenzieValley pipeline. One (1) of the reasons expressed byJustice Thomas Berger for the ten (10) year moratorium onthe pipeline was to allow for the completion of the land

Page 2812345678910111213141516171819202122232425use plans.Negotiations between the Aboriginalorganizations, the federal and territorial governments onthe framework for a northern land use planning programresulted in the basis of agreement on land use planningin 1983. This document identified most of the guidingprinciples of land use planning which we see reflected inthe Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claimagreement.The Aboriginal organizations worked fordecades to ensure that their land claim required thedevelopment of a Land Use Plan in accordance with thefollowing key principles. The purpose of land useplanning is to protect and promote the existing andfuture well-being of the residents and communities of thesettlement area, having regard to the interest of allCanadians. Special attention shall be de -- devoted toprotecting and promoting the existing and future social,cultural, and economic well-being of the participants,lands used by participants for harvesting and other usesof resources, and the rights of participants under thisagreement.Water resource planning is an integralpart of land use planning. Land use planning shalldirectly involve communities and designated Sahtu

Page 2912345678910111213141516171819202122232425organizations. And the Plan developed through thePlanning process shall provide the conservationdevelopment and utilization of land resources and waters.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: These principles haveall been enshrined in the Mackenzie Valley ResourceManagement Act, in one (1) form or another.As we discuss the Sahtu Land Use Plan overthe next three (3) days, it is essential that we keepthese principles front and centre to keep us moving inthe right direction.A key feature of land use planning is itsrole in the integrated resource management system. Landuse plans act as the gatekeeper in the regulatory system.They set the broad rules for development that allactivities must follow. In this way, land use plansguide and direct all regulatory decisions made inrelation to the conservation, development, and use ofland, waters, and other resources.This brings clarity and consistency to theregulatory process and streamlines decisions by ensuringthey are -- they are made at the most efficient point inthe process. This benefits industry, regulators, and

Page 3012345678910111213141516171819202122232425communities. Since land use plans are driven bycommunity input and guide all later decisions, plans area key way of ensuring that the community voice is heardand followed in the regulatory process.Under the Sahtu land claim and the MVRMA,land use plans must be implemented once the First Nationand governments have approved them. They are mandatory.The parties to the land claim agreed to this, and it isthe direction of parliament. It is not a Board decision.Under the land claim, the implementingbodies shall conduct their activities and operations inaccordance with the Plan. Under the MVRMA, they shallcarry out their powers in accordance with the Plan.In some other places in Canada, land useplans are advisory. Here in the Sahtu region, however,it is the Board's responsibility to develop a Land UsePlan that is binding. Can we look back to the history ofthe -- the Sahtu land claim negotiations to understandwhy? The negotiators did not consider an advisory rolefor the Dene Metis on matters of land and watermanagement enough. Those of us who were involved,remember that the Dene Metis asked for control. What wasagreed to was a right to co-management. In this way theDene Metis were recognized as partners in decisionsacross the Sahtu settlement area on both Crown lands and

Page 3112345678910111213141516171819202122232425Sahtu settlement lands.Following from the guiding principles ofnorthern land use planning and its intended role in theregulatory process, the Board understands its mandate tobe a broad one. It is not enough for the Plan to onlyestablish zones of where development can and cannotoccur. Many community issues relate to how developmentis carried out; not only where.The Board's mandate is to develop a planthat protects and promotes the social, cultural, andeconomic well-being of residents and communities. Ourgoal in developing the Sahtu Land Use Plan is to resolveissues that have been raised in the Planning process forthe primary benefit of those most impacted by land usedecisions, the residents and communities, with theimplementation of the land claim and the MVRMA.Many new institution and processes cameinto being. As with the -- any new system, there will begaps and problems initially. The holistic mandate ofland use plans can help to bring these differentprocesses and organizations together so we can see wherethe challenges lie overall and take steps to fix them.No other organization has this perspective.The Board also recognizes that animportant part of its mandate is to consider the

Page 3212345678910111213141516171819202122232425interests of all Canadians in developing the Plan. We dothis in several ways; by considering how the Plan mightaffect the land uses that are considered in the nationalinterests, examples of these are the Mackenzie ValleyPipeline and the establishment of Naats'ihch'oh. ThePlan provides for both of these uses.By consulting broadly with all partieswhose interest may be affected by the Plan, such asindustry, outfitters, and environmental groups, byensuring that the Plan provides significant land accessfor economic development that benefits all Canadiansthrough the revenues it generates, and by promoting thewell-being of communities, which is also in the nationalinterest.The Sahtu Plan attempts to resolve theland issues through different types of plan direction:zoning, conform -- conformity requirements, actions, andrecommendations.There has been considerable debate latelyabout what topics are appropriate for a Land Use Plan andhow far the Plan should go in providing direction toothers. We provide this direction to help regulators andothers understand what the issues are and how to carryout their work in a way that will contribute to communitywell-being. It is not intended to take over the jobs of

Page 3312345678910111213141516171819202122232425others, but rather to guide others in carrying out theirrespective functions.While a process, or initiative, mayalready exist, it can still benefit from furtherdirection arising out of the Planning process that bringscommunities' values to the forefront. The intent is toflag the issues and make progress so that in five (5)years some of these issues might drop off the table.It is in this spirit that Draft 3 waswritten. Think back to all the previous drafts and howfar we have come. Some things, like the zoning, havebeen remarkably consistent. The other components havechanged significantly throughout for the last four (4)drafts, and continue to evolve as the Board looks for theright balance between clarity, consistency, andflexibility.This hearing is a step towards a finaldraft that all parties can agree on. That is why theBoard has asked you to focus your comments on what afinal draft plan should look like, rather than thespecific wording of Draft 3. If we can agree on thatintent, the final wording will come.We have set up this public hearing tobring all participants in this process together todiscuss the Sahtu Land Use Plan. Until now, you have

Page 3412345678910111213141516171819202122232425been giving us your individual comments. For the Plan tobe successful it must come from you collectively, witheach of you understanding one another's perspectives andcoming to an agreement on what is in the best interestsof everyone involved. We have designated this hearing tofoster that collaborative atmosphere and encouragedialogue between all the different parties representedhere.We will spend the next -- the first dayand a half giving everyone a chance to have theirindividual say once more. Then we will bring to --everyone together for general discussions on key elementsof the Plan to see what potential solutions may arisewhen we all listen and speak to one another.We are developing this Plan in uncertainterms. We are in the midst of devolution and selfgovernmenttalks that have overshadowed many of our ownmeetings recently. Planning is difficult enough withouttrying to also figure out what will change withdevolution and self-government in the future.The planning process was established basedon current institutions and authorities. While these maychange in the future, there is currently no direct impacton the Land Use Plan from either of these processes. Theplan will be reviewed every five (5) years after it is

Page 3512345678910111213141516171819202122232425approved and can be amended at any time before then ifneeded.At such time as self-government ordevolution are nearing completion and we know how areasof authority and jurisdiction will change, we can amendthe Plan at that point to recognize and align with thosechanges. Until then, we can only plan with what we know.Similarly, the Plan can only be implemented throughexisting areas of jurisdiction.As a closing thought I would like to leavewith you a quote from Steven Kennett (phonetic)."Land use planning is an exercise ofsocial choice that recog -- requires usto define a common vision, assumeresponsibility for our actions, takeaccount of alternative values andinterests, think about the long term,and make explicit choices now that willhave important implications for ourfuture and for the lives of our futuregenerations. Planning has thepotential to draw upon our capacity forimagination, self-determination,generosity, foresight, and purposiveaction; it depend -- it demands the

Page 3612345678910111213141516171819202122232425best of us."Thank you. So now I'd like to turn itover to Heidi, who's going to go through a presentationon the Plan.PRESENTATION BY SAHTU LAND USE PLANNING BOARD:MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Good morning.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: I'm going to keep thisbrief. The purpose -- actually, before I start, everyoneknows I speak fast, especially when I'm nervous, soplease, if I go too fast, wave your arms violently andI'll try to slow down.The purpose of my presentation thismorning is to give a very brief refresher of Draft 3. Ithas been nine (9) months or so since the Plan came out.Basically everything in this presentation you've seenbefore, during the consultations that we had on Draft 3.I'm also going to touch very briefly at the end on theinput that we received through those consultations andcomments, which is on our record and available for you tocomment on during this hearing.

Page 3712345678910111213141516171819202122232425(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Judith covered in heropening comments a lot of the key messages that the Boardworks under, such as our mandate, so I'm going to move onto more specifics.The Plan applies to all land and allpeople. It doesn't matter whether it's Crown land,commissioner's land, or settlement land: the Plan appliesequally. Similarly, it doesn't matter whetherdevelopment or land use is being proposed by a FirstNation or a resident of the region, whether it's beingproposed by a government, or a company from outside theregion. The Plan guides all development and all landuse.The Plan is implemented through theregulatory process through authorizations, and it appliesto any use of the land, water, or other resources thatrequire a licence, permit, or other authorization. Underthe MVRMA, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act,it does not apply to national parks, national historicsites or monuments, or within community boundaries.These areas are exempt from the Land Use Plan.The Plan provides its direction throughthree (3) different types of terms. The first we call

Page 3812345678910111213141516171819202122232425"conformity requirements." These are the rules for landuse. They contain zoning, which is the first conformityrequirement. This identifies what land uses can occurwhere. It also includes a number of conditions fordevelopment.All of the conformity requirements aremandatory; that is, they must be implemented. Under theMackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, allapplications -- or all activities must conform to theLand Use Plan, and it is these conformity requirementsthat set those rules.We also have actions in Draft 3, and theyare activities that communities and government must do.In Draft 3 they are described as mandatory, and this hasbeen one (1) of the key topics under which we have beengetting feedback lately. I will not speak further onthat.We also have recommendations. These arenot mandatory. These are ideas and suggestions in -- forways to carry out land use that will help to promote andprotect the well-being of residents and communities, butfor which we know there is no mandatory way of requiringthat. We ask people to consider and, where possible,implement recommendations.Moving on to the zoning then, a quick

Page 3912345678910111213141516171819202122232425refresher. We have three (3) different -- or sorry, four(4) main categories of zones.The first are the general use zones.They're the -- generally the grey or clear areas on ourmapping. These are areas that are intended to allow afull variety of development and promote development.They are the least restrictive zones that we have. Theonly land use that is prohibited through the Land UsePlan in these areas is bulk water removal, and that meanstaking large volumes of water out of the region.All activities in general use zones aresubject to existing laws and regulations, and anythingthat comes to the existing regulatory process. Inaddition, we have twelve (12) general conditions that allnew land uses would be expected to follow.I'm not going to go through each of theconformity requirements, but if you look in your hearingpackage we have reproduced the wording of all of theconformity requirements, actions, and recommendations foryou for your reference. But briefly, they cover topicssuch as community engagement and traditional knowledge,community benefits, protection of archaeological andburial sites, water, wildlife, general environmentalimpacts, climate change, incidental harvest of resources,species introductions, ecologically significant areas,

Page 4012345678910111213141516171819202122232425and closure and reclamation.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: The next zone type isspecial management zones. These are shown in yellow inall of our zoning maps.These are areas that still allow fordevelopment, but they are areas where communities havetold us there are special values, and they want whateverdevelopment happens in these areas to be carried out in away that will not harm or impact those values. And we dothat through two (2) new conditions or conformityrequirements.The first requires that applicants assessthe impact of their activities to those values that we'veidentified with communities, and minimize their impactsto those values. The second is that they monitor theimpacts of their activities on those values.And through these two (2) conformityrequirements the Board intends that there would be ahigher level of scrutiny on applications and activitiesoccurring in these areas. So development can proceed,but it is intended to proceed a little more cautiously,recognizing the importance of some of these areas.

Page 4112345678910111213141516171819202122232425The next category is conservation zones.These are the most important areas that communities haveidentified for us. These are areas where they've saidthey are so important that development should notproceed. These areas, therefore, restrict bulk waterremoval, mining activities or mineral explorationactivities, oil and gas, forestry, power development, andquarrying. So none of those activities are allowed inconservation zones.In these areas, existing laws, generalconditions, and the special management conditions allapply in addition to the restrictions. And the reasonfor that is it is expected that there are alreadyexisting uses in some of these conservation zones, andwhere these existing uses are continuing because they aregrandfathered, we would at least expect them to followthe conditions of the special management zone, and theother conditions in the Plan. So there are two (2) typesof protection in the conservation zones.The fourth category are proposedconservation initiatives. As far as the Plan isconcerned right now, they are very similar toconservation zones in that we prohibit or restrict thesame activities. The difference is that these areas havea different future before them. They are moving through

Page 4212345678910111213141516171819202122232425the protected area strategy, national park establishment,or other vehicles to protect lands such as with the CanolTrail and Dodo Canyon.So for now they are treated the same asconservation zones. But in the future, once they areestablished, the Plan would apply very differently inthese areas because they would be managed as per theirlegislation under these other processes.As with most rules there are exceptions,and I want to go through these. In conservation zonesand proposed conservation initiatives, I mentioned thesix (6) types of land use that are restricted. Indeveloping the Plan of -- there's always things that weneed to allow for.So what is allowed in these zones?Anything that we did not mention specifically. So thePlan does not talk about tourism, as an example. Sothere is no prohibition or restrictions on tourism inconservation zones.Existing uses. Any rights or uses thatwere already occurring the day before the Plan isapproved will be allowed to continue. We call thatgrandfathering. However, the way the Plan is written inDraft 3, once those land uses are renewed, they wouldstill be allowed to continue but we would apply the other

Page 4312345678910111213141516171819202122232425conditions, so the protections for wildlife or water, forexample, to those renewals, so that we are bringing olderland uses into compliance with the Land Use Plan.We allow for the progression of rights.So that means if somebody has a mineral claim and theywant to take that to a mineral lease, it is a differentland use, but it's a continuation of the same right alongits natural progression. Similarly for oil and gas,someone who has an exploration licence has the right tocontinue their activities and take that to a significantdiscovery licence or a production licence eventually. Soif they've already got a foot in the door with a right,the Plan will allow for that natural continuation ofactivities.The Plan has provisions for access acrosszones, and taking water and gravel for use in otherzones. And this is under CR 1, under the zoning. Sowhile we're trying to prohibit new land uses, werecognize that if somebody's operating just outside thezone and they need to go across that zone to get theresources to market, they may need to build a road andthey may need access to water and gravel to build thatroad.And so this is one of the ways that theBoard is accommodating and trying to promote the

Page 4412345678910111213141516171819202122232425effective use of resources in the region. To do thatthough, the applicant would have to demonstrate thatthere's no other way besides going through that zone, andthat they're avoiding the significant areas that we'veidentified with communities, and minimizing theirimpacts.We also allow anything required forcommunity infrastructure, or development, in aconservation zone. Right now, the only community that'sright beside one (1) of these -- Colville Lake would be agood example; Fort Good Hope, potentially.Anything required for clean up andremediation. So if there's a contaminated site, or ifindustry has left behind, or -- or anybody using thelands left behind things that they needed to go back andclean up, the Plan does not block that in any way.Anything required to deal with the emergencies.And for clarity, nothing in the Plan wasmeant to impact on Aboriginal harvesting rights as laidout in the land claim.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Judith, in hercomments, talked about the remarkable consistency of

Page 4512345678910111213141516171819202122232425zoning. What you hear -- see here is the continuation ofzoning since the first maps came out. The preliminarydraft came out in 2003, Draft 1 in February 2007. Therewas some revisions for a discussion paper later thatsummer, which was called Working Draft 2, followed byDraft 2 a few years later. And on the far right, you seeDraft 3.Now, the colours have changed, so don't --don't focus too much on that, but if you look at theoverall shapes and areas, you can see, especially on theconservation zones, the similarity: Great Bear Lakewatershed, the Saoyu-Ehdacho Ehdana (phonetic), theRamparts, the three (3) tongues of Shuhtagot'ine Nene:the Keele, Mountain and Red -- sorry, Redstone rivers;all the lakes -- the -- the large lakes up in theColville uplands area; Naats'ihch'oh, White Fish River,Great Bear and Mackenzie Rivers.If you look on the bottom right, you cansee the changes in the conservation of the different zonetypes, and you'll see that conservation zones have hadremarkable consistency over the course of eight (8)years. The major changes have been in the categories ofspecial management zones, and general use zones, andthat's also reflected a change in how those zones areused and defined.

Page 4612345678910111213141516171819202122232425(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: So getting to Draft 3,which was spread out last July. You've all spent nine(9) months looking at this map, and thinking about it, soI'm not going to say a whole lot about it now, other thanto point out, I guess, the percentages. Everyone likesnumbers.So in Draft 3, we're sitting at around 31percent general use, 41 1/2 percent for specialmanagement zones, 4 1/2 percent of conservation zones; sothese are the areas that the Board is solely responsiblefor. The proposed conservation initiatives, 20 1/2percent; and these are areas that are going through otherinitiatives of which the communities, the federal andterritorial governments all partner.We also have roughly 2 1/2 percent of landin the Sahtu that are in existing national parks andhistoric sites. So that's Tuktu Nogait National Park,and Saoyu-Ehdacho national historic site.As you know, there have been significantmeetings since Draft 3 that has lead to requests forchanges in the zoning. Those are, in part, what lead tothe Board making the decision to postpone this hearingssince last November, to allow for these changes to come

Page 4712345678910111213141516171819202122232425through.Many of you have been involved in thediscussions and the meetings on these changes. I do wantto make clear right now that all of these are stillrequested changes. The Board doesn't make its finaldecisions until after the hearing so that we could giveeveryone the opportunity to final -- to give finalcomment on these proposed changes.So let's start with Naats'ihch'oh in thebottom corner. There's actually two (2) maps. Thisinset map represents the Tulita district's input into theprocess. There is a map shown at our January meeting byParks Canada about where the boundaries are potentiallygoing for that park.Parks Canada's process is separate thanours. However, the Tulita district picked this up andsaid, Yeah, that's what we want. So we've always shownthat as their input in our process as well. However, atthe January meeting, as we looked to the future ofcompleting this plan and the timelines for Parks Canadacompleting their process, our timelines are very closeand we need to find a way to allow us to finish the Planwithout waiting for Parks Canada to finish their process.And the proposal that has been put forwardis that we take the existing land withdrawal boundary,

Page 4812345678910111213141516171819202122232425which is what you see there, plus the O'Grady Lakeextension, which is new area that's been put forward intheir final stages. And as far as the Planning Board isconcerned, somewhere in that area there will be anational park because park establishment has to be guidedby the Land Use Plan; we have to be consistent.The Tulita district has been given usinput that any areas left out of that area should begiven an automatic default zoning of special management.So that gives us a solution that we can put in the LandUse Plan in the future without having to wait for thosefinal boundaries and without having to amend the Planright away. So that's the two (2) inputs onNaats'ihch'oh.Shuhtagot'ine Nene has undergonesignificant changes. It used to be the three (3) tonguesof the rivers. It is now these two (2) areas together,and that was a result of a lot of hard work by thevarious organizations in Tulita and their Elders toidentify their final input of what they wanted this areato look like.They had also asked that instead of beinga proposed conservation initiative, that it be turnedinto a conservation zone so that its primary protectioncomes through the Land Use Plan.

Page 4912345678910111213141516171819202122232425The round parts, there have been nochanges there right now, but it is undergoing itsdiscussions through the Canadian Wildlife Service and theprotected area strategy with the community at the moment.And based on the meeting last week, we expect in the nextthree (3) months there might be a final boundary proposalfor that area.We are looking for the same solutionsthere as we have for Naats'ihch'oh. How can we identifyin advance how to zone any areas that might be left out,as well as it currently includes four (4) settlement landparcels that cannot be part of that final nationalwildlife area.So we've spoken to the community aboutthat and we're hoping to get some feedback from Fort GoodHope during this hearing on how those areas would bemapped in the Land Use Plan. So that's one (1) of ouroutstanding questions to be resolved yet.There were a few other conservation zonesthat were added during the Tulita discussions that Iforgot to talk about. So when SGN, or K'asho Got'ine,changed from that large area, the direction waseverything else would be special management but therewere two (2) or three (3) small areas that werepreviously covered that they felt should still have their

Page 5012345678910111213141516171819202122232425own separate protection.So Palmer Lake, Cache Lake, and MirageMountain (phonetic) were added as part of that process.You'll also remember that previously the mountain riverwas protected; it was a concer -- or, sorry, proposedconservation initiative. It still exists on the K'ashoGot'ine side of the district boundary. It no longerexists on the Tulita district.Because the Planning Board is a regionalorganization, we felt it's important to maintain someform of transboundary continuity between the districts.So at this point, we've asked(INDISCERNIBLE) to identify a separate special managementzone in the Tulita district that would allow continuityacross the border into the -- the K'asho Got'ine districtarea. It doesn't change the direction of the communityto have special management, but it allows cross bordercontinuity.There were a number of changes initiallyproposed for the Mackenzie River Valley area by theTulita District. Following the discussions internallywith their Elders, that was all reverted back to theDraft 3 zoning, with a few exceptions.The first exception is that the areawithin the Norman Wells block land transfer should all be

Page 5112345678910111213141516171819202122232425general use, and that has been maintained on this map.The other question is we had, followingall of the district level meetings, a submission from theNorman Wells Land Corporation requesting that parcels105, 106, and 107 be zoned as conservation. Thisincludes Three Day Lake, and some small fragments on thenorth shore of the river.Their submission indicated that ifagreement could not be reached on that, that they wouldtake special management as a fall back, which isessentially what it was in Draft 3.We have shown the request on this map, andwe hope to get that worked out between the Norman WellsLand Corp. and the district yet.The other change is with Clement Lake, andit's so small you probably can't even see it here. It'sa small fishing lake just west of the Great Bear Lakewatershed special management zone.There was a request from the Tulita areato ensure that that is protected. It is in Deline'sdistrict, and they agreed to protect that -- that area asspecial management, so there is a small new specialmanagement that is added just adjacent to the Great BearLake zone.The primary direction from Deline was to

Page 5212345678910111213141516171819202122232425change Edaiila from a pro -- proposed conservationinitiative to a conservation zone, and that was a resultof their not being picked up by the Canadian WildlifeService for a national wildlife area last year, sothey've asked for the area to be protected through theLand Use Plan instead.There was also a request to merge Neregah,which is the north shore heritage zone on the north shoreof Great Bear Lake, with the larger Great Bear Lakewatershed special management zone, but to still ensurethat there is a higher level of protection andenforcement for the archaeological and cultural sites inthat area.With all of these changes, the mostsignificant being SGN and Edaiila, there are some changesto numbers, and I know everybody always wants to knowthis.If these changes were proposed andaccepted by the Board, conservation zones would change to10.8 percent; proposed conservation initiatives wouldchange to 8.3 percent so a major drop there; specialmanagement zones would increase to 47.5 percent; andgeneral use zones would remain basically consistent, 30.6percent.

Page 5312345678910111213141516171819202122232425(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: I know we're all inneed of a break, so I'm going to wrap this up reallyquick.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: I know we're all inneed of a break, so I'm going to wrap this up reallyquick.Key activities and inputs since Draft 3.As you know, the hearing was initially held -- or calledfor November with the request for a postponement.We spent most of our time working on thetop issues, and that is working through the zoningchanges with the Tulita district, raising our questionswith the K'asho Got'ine District on how to zone theirsettlement lands, and dealing with primarily the questionof how we deal with actions in the Plan, and inviting allof that input and dialogue.We've taken advantage of every opportunityto try to meet with various parties in our process todiscuss comments, and get a better understanding so thatthe Board has an idea of where it will take plan

Page 5412345678910111213141516171819202122232425revisions. So, all of our meetings have been in thisregard, and as per our process, you can find summarynotes of everything we've discussed with anybody on ourweb site, for your information.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: This is a -- basicallya highlight slide. As we're coming to prepare for thehearing, what are some of the key messages that we'veheard from people, what are the -- the key areas thatwe've been focussing on, that -- that we are focussingon.First and foremost has been the -- thecomments that the Plan should not contain mandatoryactions. Many people have commented on the conformrequirements, looking for additional clarity, pointingout implementation issues.So the Board wants you to know that wehave heard what you are saying, and that's why it's sucha major focus of our hearing this week.The need for clear implementationprocesses that do not significantly increase theregulatory burden or time lines. I think we all need torecognize that once the Plan comes into being, it will

Page 5512345678910111213141516171819202122232425change things.It is a new piece in the regulatory systemthat was always intended to be there, so to say that itwill change nothing would raise the question of why arewe doing this. But we do want to make sure that we'renot adding to the regulatory burden, and that the Planwill help to streamline the process.We heard from many people that, with theconformity requirements, they agree with the intent.They agree with what the Board is trying to do; we justneed to do some more work on the wording.We heard from many parties that they --they like the concept of the Sahtu working group that theBoard has proposed, and a number of organizations haveindicated that they cannot self-fund participationthough, and that is an issue the Board will have to lookat.We've heard from communities especiallythat we need -- that they would like to see the Planstrengthened around their core issues, such astraditional knowledge, community engagement, theprotection of water and wildlife, enforcement inmonitoring, and Fort Good Hope has spoken at length aboutthe need to include the group trapping area in the Planitself, not the backhand report.

Page 5612345678910111213141516171819202122232425We've also heard from a number of partiesthat the Land and Water Boards are working on a series ofguidelines and policies, and there's an expectation thatthe Plan will be consistent with these, and referencethese once they're completed.In the interest of time, I think I'm goingto skip this slide for now, as we -- we've had a greatamount of discussion in pre-hearing conferences andothers about the point of this hearing.When I finish our presentation, if thereare any questions I would certainly speak to that. Whenwe get to the discussion topics, I will also introducethose with the Board as there will be plenty of othertimes to talk about this.Okay. End -- end point here. As you allknow, the Plan must be approved by SSI, the GNWT, andINAC. Yes, you like that.The Board's role is essentially neutral.We are here to facilitate the discussions between thesethree (3) parties, and all of the other participants inthis process, and we are here to get agreement amongstthose three (3) approving parties.We, of course, want to make sure that whatis in the Plan is clear and can be implemented as we havepart of that function later on. But if we can get the

Page 5712345678910111213141516171819202122232425three (3) parties and other participants to agree, thatis our job.As Judith mentioned in her openingcomments, the Plan has legal effect under the MackenzieValley Resource Management Act and the land claimagreement; that is how it was designed and that is whatpeople signed on to with the land claim agreement.Once the Plan is approved we monitorimplementation; that is the Board's job. It is primarilyimplemented through regulators, governments, the districtland corporations on their lands. The Board's job is tomonitor all of that and make sure that it is beingimplemented appropriately, but the power and authorityfor implementation rests with others.The Board will only check whether anapplication conforms with the Land Use Plan if it isreferred to the Board; that is what the legislation does.And, finally, under the Act and under thePlan, the Board has the ability to grant exceptions; thisis an important part of the Plan's flexibility. If werun into a situation with an application where -- whetherit's to do with grandfathering existing use or asituation the Plan did not contemplate, we have theability to grant exceptions and to waive some of theconditions of the Plan.

Page 5812345678910111213141516171819202122232425The Plan will be reviewed every five (5)years and, if necessary, updated at that time. It canalso be amended at any time before five (5) years if asignificant issue arises, a new land use, the communityis wanting to change the zoning.Both the five (5) year review and anyamendment at any other time go through the same approvalprocess as the Plan itself, so SSI, GNWT, and INAC mustagree to any changes. And that concludes thepresentation. I hope everyone's caught up.THE CHAIRPERSON: So we'll have a fifteen(15) minute break now, and then have Ethel do herpresentation.--- Upon recessing at 10:50 a.m.--- Upon resuming at 11:11 a.m.MS. RUBY MACDONALD: Hi.THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.MS. RUBY MACDONALD: Is it on?THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is --MS. RUBY MACDONALD: Okay.THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: -- Ruby.MS. RUBY MACDONALD: Ruby MacDonald fromthe Norman Wells Land Corporation. Heidi, in her

Page 5912345678910111213141516171819202122232425presentation, talked about a Sahtu working group.I would just like to ask her what a Sahtuworking group would consist of? You know, government,oil and gas people, or what?MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Thanks, Ruby. Yeah, inDraft 3 of the Plan we had a preliminary list, butessentially it's meant to be a collaborative group withrepresentation from all the participants in the Planningprocess in a small form. So you'd have INAC, GNWT, thecommunities represented or the districts, SSI, industry,environmental groups. So basically all of the keyrepresentatives.Ideally, I think we'd need to keep thegroup between twelve (12) and twenty (20) people, so --but that level of detail has not yet been finalized.Thanks.THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Heidi,and Ruby. If -- if there's no other questions, we wouldnow like to move onto the SSI's presentation on the Sahtuland use planning. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.PRESENTATION BY SSI:MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Thank you.Thank you very much, Mr. Co-Chair. I would like to startoff by taking the opportunity to thank the Board for

Page 6012345678910111213141516171819202122232425accommodating the change in the agenda.I also would like to introduce the SSIboard of directors. Peter Menacho is here from Deline,the vice-chair of SSI. Ruby MacDonald is actually therepresentative for Norman Wells. She's here as well.Joe Grandjambe from Fort Good Hope. Joseph Kochon. AndI know we have some representatives from the Fort NormanMetis and Tulita District, but the actual reps are nothere. The alternates are here. I think Lori-Ann andDiane are from Fort Norman Metis. And it might be DougYallee -- is it Doug Yallee that would be Tulita LandCorporation? Doug Yallee. So I want to thank them forbeing here.Also, as you well know, this file hasquite a long history, as -- as was indicated by both --well, specifically by Judith, the Chair of the Sahtu LandUse Planning Board. And I don't need to go into any ofthat, but there's a lot of complicated legal issues, sowe have retained a legal representative. This is JohnDonihee, who works -- has been working with us, and alsowe have Pat Duxbury. He's our consultant researcher whomakes sure that we aren't giving you a line; that thingsare verified, and are correct and factual.So those are the people that we have here.If I've missed anyone, I am sorry. I also wanted to say

Page 6112345678910111213141516171819202122232425to our partners that we work with all the time, theChiefs and the Grand Chief Frank Andrew, and the Chiefsfrom the communities. We share a common interest in theland and what happens on it, and how the stewardship ofthe land and conservation issues are dealt with, so wewant to welcome them here. We also have the differentlevels of government, (INDISCERNIBLE) federal government,so we welcome them here as well. We are partners intrying to get to a certain point with the Land Use Plan.We have a slide presentation. In -- inthe -- as you can see, just the main issues. On slide 1we have the presentation summary, and then we're going togo on to -- this is what -- how we're going to do it.We're going to do the -- go back, please, Patrick, sorry.Introduction of SSI and it's role with the Plan, main SSIobjectives in review of Draft 3, and review of key SSIcomments on Draft 3, general comments, and dealingspecifically with the conformity requirements and themandatory actions.These are two (2) issues that have comeforward. They're technical. I'm not as -- sorry, I'vegot to slow down. I'm not as -- you think you're fastHeidi, I spent eighteen (18) years talking and trying toget everything into two (2) minutes, so. But what I'dlike to do is just say that these are fairly technical

Page 6212345678910111213141516171819202122232425and legal issues.If you go to the next slide, you'll seethat Sahtu secretary at the incorporated is -- represents-- well, represents the regional voice of theparticipants in the Sahtu Land Claim Agreement. There isa very direct relationship between the land corporationand SSI as the corporation presidents sit as the --usually sit as directors. In some cases, it's someoneappointed by the president in their stead.This helps to ensure that SSI acts incoordination with the districts and communities. SSIalong with that of the government of the NorthwestTerritories and government of Canada must approve theSahtu Land Use Plan in order to bring the Plan intoeffect. The responsibility requires that SSI verycarefully examine the Plan, and it's implications for thefuture of the Sahtu.And this is where I like to make myappeal. In order to move forward -- and it's been along-time coming, been a lot of work that has gone intothis -- I appeal to the two (2) levels of government,both the GNWT and the federal government to engage andcommit to moving forward and to working on reconcilingand bringing together the Plan that will see that it'sfinalized and approved. So I really want to stress that.

Page 6312345678910111213141516171819202122232425It may not be on the same page with regards toeverything, but these are things that can be mediated andreconciled, I believe.I told someone from one (1) of thegovernments yesterday, Take a position. They said, Wehave taken a position and we are defending that position.What I meant was please agree with us. I -- I had,aside, stated that.The SSI's objectives, of course, is theSSI review of the Plan considered a number of importantfactors. The plan was reviewed from a legal andjurisdictional perspective to ensure consistency withexisting laws, particularly the Sahtu Land Claim and theMackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.We examined the Plan to ensure that itwon't adversely affect the rights and interests of Sahtubeneficiaries. The review also focussed on the need forthe Plan to be effectively implemented within theexisting regulatory system in the Mackenzie Valley. SSIwants to ensure the Plan's conformity requirements andactions are both feasible and provide clear guidance toparties proposing activities on the land. As a result,much of the SSI review address the language and intent ofthe CRs or the conformity requirements and actions.Then we want to go into the -- we want to

Page 6412345678910111213141516171819202122232425review the SSI comments on Draft 3. That's just atransition slide. The review -- we're going to reviewthe limitations. While the SSI's review was broad, itwasn't intended to cover all aspects of the Plan. Ourreview was not addre -- has not addressed matters thatare the responsibility of the district land corporations.SSI has left discussion of the land useclassification system, specific values to be protected orconsidered in zones, and the overall allocation of landsto the various (INDISCERNIBLE).Is it okay? I can talk over anything, Iraised three (3) kids. (INDISCERNIBLE).(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: All right.We're on slide 9. SSI wants to emphasize its support ofthe zoning change initiatives brought forward by theDeline District Land Corporation, the Tulita DistrictLand Corporation, the Norman Wells Land Corporation, andthe K'asho Got'ine District Land Corporation. We lookforward to hearing from these parties about thesematters.The -- number 1, establishing an enhancedrole for the Planning Board. The SSI believes that the

Page 6512345678910111213141516171819202122232425Planning Board is best suited -- the best-suited agencyfor implementing the Plan as it has developed thenecessary knowledge, experience, and relationships withcommunities and others to do the job.For the first five (5) years following thePlan's approval, the SSI would like to have the Board beresponsible for conformity determination and planimplementation. The Board should also assume a generalcoordination role in ensuring that the Plan's actions areimplemented. There has to be sort of a place to go to,the go-to organization. I'm not saying that other peopledon't feed into that or have a relationship with that butthat's generally the sentiment.Number 2, the types of authorizationssubject to the Plan. The SSI suggests that the list ofauthorizations, subject to the Plan, as listed in Table11. You'll see Table 11 in your information. In yourdocket you'll see a list of authorizations; I'm not goingto go into them in detail. Do we have that -- do we havethat? Yeah, there it is. That's the list there, butwe're not going to go into that. When we had our meetingin Good Hope we went through this line by line but I'mnot going to go through that.The -- the -- they need to be examine --re-examined and scaled back. We say this because we

Page 6612345678910111213141516171819202122232425stress the Plan needs to be practical in order to befeasible to implement. Only those licences, permits, orauthorizations related to the use of land or water or thedeposit of waste are subject to the Plan.We need to focus the Plan's application tothose authorizations -- what is that? It sounds like aloud bee. Sorry. We -- we nee -- oh for God's sake. Weneed to focus -- if I hear babies crying that's it, I'mleaving. We need to focus the Plan's application tothose authorizations where land and water -- answer yourphone Arthur. We need to focus the Plan's application tothose authorizations where land and water can be affectedin a potentially significant way. It sounds just like myhouse actually.There are also opportunities to simplifythe conformity determination to make the Plan easier toimplement. Agencies authorizing dispositions to the landshould be mainly concerned with ensuring that theproposed activities conform to the Plan's zoning, as yousaw, Heidi went through all of the zoning issues, not indetail but well enough for -- to be understood, shouldproposed activities be allowed or not allowed in thespeci -- specific zone in question. Beyond the questionof zoning, the other conformity requirement should beaddressed through the environmental authorizations which

Page 6712345678910111213141516171819202122232425are more appropriate instruments to use.The table of authorizations, as Iindicated, is there and we won't get into that. That'sslide 12. I think I pre-empted myself. How can I dothat? I outdid myself.Slide 13. Rephrasing conformityrequirements, as we indicated, should be done. In ourreview we made a number of comments about rephrasing,changing the wording basically, of some of the conformityrequirements. SSI recommends that the language andintent of the CRs should be clear that the duty forensuring that a proposed land use activity conforms tothe Plan is re -- the responsibility of the applicant andnot the regulatory authority reviewing the application.Policy statements, protocols, or similarguidance on how to achieve conformity with the Planshould be included either in the Plan or part of theimplementation guide to help applicants when they areplanning their activities. SSI recognizes that thetimelines for developing such guidance could delayapproval of the Plan. We suggest that the development ofguidance material can be deferred until the Plan isapproved, but it still should be recognized as a highpriority.Conformity, determinations, process and

Page 6812345678910111213141516171819202122232425timing issues. On this slide we believe that there are anumber of CRs -- as you all know meaning "conformityrequirements" -- where timing of the conformitydetermination may not work well within the existing timeframes that regulators are using for their processes.For example, as currently written, some ofthe CRs cannot be addressed until the end of apreliminary screening or an environmental assessment.The Board should review a number of these CRs from thetiming perspective to ensure that the conformitydetermination occurs early and in a way that supports anddoes not conflict with the regulatory process. Sothere's those issues to work out.This is kind of technical for me -- I'mnot a lawyer or not a technician. I just like to talk.But this is an exercise in discipline for me, you know.I might just break out into a joke or something.So these are -- these are some of thethings that have to be worked on. Slide 15 -- am I onslide 15? Yes. The community engagement and traditionalknowledge issue is a very important one. If you talk toanyone outside of the legal and political, as well as thetechnical realm -- anybody, including the Elders and thecommunity people, will tell you how important this is.And it's become the thinking of the day, too. It's part

Page 6912345678910111213141516171819202122232425of doing business well. It's part of the businessculture to think that those have to be integrated.The SSI strongly supports the intent ofthe Plan to encourage applicants to engage withcommunities and to consider traditional knowledge whenplanning and carrying out their developments. However --and -- and it's been evident in years past, especiallythe last number of years, that they take it uponthemselves to do that. But it also helps when theregulatory boards, like the Sahtu Land and Water Board,have encouraged them to do that; that if they're going todo development, they undertake a -- a TK study.The wording of this CR needs to emphasizethat it is the applicant's duty to meet the requirementsinstead of the regulator's. There are also timing issuesabout knowing with the CR should be satisfied. It may bedifficult to judge how this CR can be addressed to thesatisfaction of all concerns. The wording is subjective.For this reason, the SSI suggests that the PlanningBoard, along with others, work toward the development ofobjective standards for satisfactory community engagementand implementation of traditional knowledge, so that itworks for everybody, it just doesn't work for one (1)group and one (1) size fits all. It's -- it would be --it would be, I guess, a fair and more practical process

Page 7012345678910111213141516171819202122232425that way.Commun -- then we go on to communitybenefits as part of Conformity Requirement 3. The SSI isvery supportive of those land use activities that providetangible benefits to Sahtu communities.However, as written, the SSI anticipatesthere could be problems with the implementation of these-- this CR as it is written. The notion of what acommunity benefit is is subjective. It's different foreach community. What one (1) party may consider abenefit, others might not. This could potentially leadto disputes. Furthermore, many regulators have limitedauthority to impose socio-economic measures for thelicences and permits that they issue.We suggest that the Planning Board consul-- consider alt -- alternative means of achieving theintent of the CR. One (1) suggestion we offer is that ofa public-interest test or community-support test.Benefits outweigh costs is an example to consider.Somebody's dogging me out there, and I'mnot even running for anything.CR 5, Water -- Watershed Management. TheBoard should clarify how this CR will apply to generalusezones upstream of conservation zones, specialmanagement zones, or proposed conservation initiatives.

Page 7112345678910111213141516171819202122232425We had quite an expensive discussion inorder to -- to put this material together, and it'sinteresting. This needs to be addressed in any planrevisions because the application of the CR hassignificant geographic scope. SSI is concerned about howthe proposed non-degradation approach can be practicallyimplemented. The current draft does not elaborate thepotential effect of this policy on what we understand tobe typical development activities.I'm reading it and I've been over it anumber of times, and even I have trouble trying to figureout what that means, but never mind. I'm -- I shouldn'tsay that. I do actually understand it. I wouldn't leaveJohn alone until I did actually understand it.But I think that's something that we needto really work on and really -- is this where I am? Oh,the non-degradation approach -- sorry, I just kind oflost myself in my -- I said I'm more of a talker than areader.Also, depending on what agencies areresponsible for implementing the Plan, the CR could beinterpreted by agencies with no experience in watermanagement matters. The SSI would prefer to see a CRbased on a policy framework that focusses on sourcecontrol of pollutants and the management of waste into

Page 7212345678910111213141516171819202122232425water. And there are existing -- there are existingmodels, existing methods that could do that based onscience. And I think that's something that really needsto be seriously considered.Then we go on to slide 18 on ConformityRequirement number 6 dealing with drinking water. The C-- the SSI suggests that the Planning Board giveconsideration to the term "contamination" in the CRbecause, as it stands now, the term is quite subjectiveand open for interpretation. Everybody thinks they knowwhat it is until you're tested and you have to prove itand you have to validate it. This could potentially leadto problems in or during the Plan-implementation stage.We also suggest that language of the CR becarefully reviewed to avoid interfering with the work ofthe Sahtu Land and Water Board and its authority toestablish limits for the lawful deposit of waste intowater.As you probably know, that it gallseveryone to think that there's pollution in our water,but mu -- much of the water that's used in differentplaces are, I guess you could say, "recycled." If you goto any city or any place, even in the communities, a lotof the water is recycled and people don't even know that.And I don't think it's well advertised, actually. There

Page 7312345678910111213141516171819202122232425might be a reason for that as well, but that's somethingto consider.This could -- during -- we suggest thatthe language of the CR be carefully reviewed to avoidinterfering with the work of the Board, and for them tobe able to carry out establishing the limits for thelawful deposit of wa -- waste into water.Slide 19 -- we're dealing with incidentalharvest on that CR number 10. While SSI stronglysupports the intent of the CR, the CR is one that we haveidentified as being potentially problematic to implement.SSI proposes that the CR be reworded to encouragecommitments from applicants to share surplus orincidental harvests. This is one (1) of the CRs whoseimplementation would be greatly enhanced by thedevelopment of a policy statement or protocol that wouldguide applicants.CR number 13. This CR, particularly part1, would likely affect -- on reclamation would likelyaffect the Sahtu Land and Water Board's authority toestablish policies regarding reclamation security. And,as such, SSI questions the benefit of retaining part 1.The SSI agrees with the ins -- intent --second part of this -- with the intent of the second partof this CR, however, we have concerns about the timing

Page 7412345678910111213141516171819202122232425when a determination of conformity could take place. Thewording should be revised to focus on securingcommitments from applicants to oblige them to reclaim theland in an acceptable manner consistent with the valuesespoused in the Plan.On slide 21 we go into assessment andmitigation. We are unsure how this conformityrequirement provides any improvement over the existingenvironmental impact assessment process set out in theMackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. SSI is of theopinion that the Mackenzie Valley Res -- Review Board andthe Sahtu Land and Water Board are the best agencies toassess environmental impacts of development. The Planwould be very -- the Plan would be a very useful tool inassisting those agencies because it clearly identifiesthe values that need to be considered during theseassessments.In addition, the wording of the CRsuggests a potential problem of timing. The SSI'spreference is that conformity with the Plan should beestablished; should be ideally es -- should ideally beestablished at the earliest stages of the regulatoryreview.Slide 22, CR 15 on monitoring. SSIsuggests that some wording changes are necessary to make

Page 7512345678910111213141516171819202122232425this CR easier to implement. The CR should clearly statethat applicants proposing land-use activities in thespecial management zones, conservation zones and --what's this one, the PCI -- proposed conservationinitiatives -- I don't know all the acronyms, so.Proposed conservation initiatives zone -- zone shouldprovide site-specific monitoring plans with theirapplications. Implementation of the CR would alsobenefit from the development of guidance on what shouldbe included in monitoring plans.And then we get to slide 23. Slide 23 isSSI is concerned that real commitments to Planimplementation be made by all parties, especially byapproving governments. And I -- I want to emphasize howimportant I think that is. It's going to take a bit ofengagement -- well, a lot of engagement and innovationfor us to get to that point. I think the file has -- hasbeen going on for a long time as -- as our Chair hasindicated, the Chair of the Land Use Planning Board, andI think everybody is eager to see -- see it to come tosome fruition and to finalize it and to approve it.But we know that we have some work to doto engage with the GNWT as well as -- as INAC to getthere. Our reasons are different, I imagine, and our --our approach varies, but what I think we really need is

Page 7612345678910111213141516171819202122232425we need this Land Use Plan. It's long overdue, and itcan't be left out there languishing like a lot of theother implementation issues that are out there.So, I appeal to our partners there.Regardless of the legal authority of the Planning Boardto impose mandatory actions, the biggest issue is thatthe work required to fully implement the Plan needs to beundertaken in an earnest and effective way. SSI iswilling to work with others to see the Plan implemented.There may be several ways to achieve this, includingpossibly an implementation contract, and that would be awhole other discussion for another day.And then I'd like to just thank you andconclude our -- our presentation and just say that we'vehad an opportunity as a Board to work with John, andwe've learned a lot and we know that this is a reallyimportant step. And I -- I'm just really impressed withthe Hearing. I think it's a really good thing. I thinkit's brought the whole region together. It's brought allparties concerned here, and I think the Board is to becommended on that.So, thank you very much. Mahsi cho.THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ethel. Sowe're going to open it now for questions. If anyone hasquestions for -- for the SSI presentation we'll take the

Page 7712345678910111213141516171819202122232425questions now or comments. First, we'd like to invitethe Board, if there is any questions from the Board.QUESTION PERIOD:MR. BOB OVERVOLD: Patrick, could you putthe thing back up and go to "Authorizations".(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. BOB OVERVOLD: No. No, your earlierslide, yeah. Yeah, that's the one.My name is Bob Overvold, I'm a Boardmember. What the Board wants to do is have presentersclarify any questions we may have and -- and we're mostlikely going to have questions primarily for the three(3) approving parties. That's INAC, the GNWT and SSI,who, under the Act, have the authority to approve thePlan once it's finally submitted to you.So to help us in dealing with issues we --we would like to clarify some questions. The question Ihave here and I don't want to turn this into a technicalthing, nor does Ethel I think, but I think generally whatI'm -- read is you're trying to lim -- limit orsuggesting that we limit the authorizations and that theybe limited to section 46(1) of the -- the Act.

Page 7812345678910111213141516171819202122232425Our question is why did you not deal withsection 41 of the Act, which deals with the scope of thePlan to conservation, development, and use of land, waterand other resources? I think generally during ourconsultations, particularly with communities, communitieswanted a broader scope not a smaller scope forauthorizations. So I just -- I guess the right questionis: Did you look at section 41 which deals with thescope of the Plan of authorizations?(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: I'm glad thatyou didn't want to get technical, Bob. I'm glad that youdidn't want to get technical. Now what was thatquestion? No, I'm joking.From what I am being -- from thediscussion we had on this, 41 deals with what's in thePlan, right? It's what's in there. And 40 -- 46(1)deals with the implementation aspects, how you implemate-- implement, and that's why we focussed on that. Wefocussed on implantation.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: And a follow-upquestion to this area. Will SSI commit to identifyingwhich authorization in the Board's list are

Page 7912345678910111213141516171819202122232425administrative in nature and do not relate in any way togranting the right to an interest in land or authorizethe conservation, development, or use of land, waters, orother resources? So as a follow-up we -- we'd like moreclarification from you and identify these things.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: We'llcertainly undertake to do that. We'll undertake to -- toprovide more clarification. Thank you.--- UNDERTAKING NO. 1: For SSI to provide moreclarification re: identifyingwhich authorization in theBoard's list areadministrative in nature anddo not relate in any way togranting the right to aninterest in land or authorizethe conservation,development, or use of land,waters, or other resourcesMR. BOB OVERVOLD: I've got a --MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Or you're --MR. BOB OVERVOLD: -- a coup --MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: -- you're

Page 8012345678910111213141516171819202122232425thanking me.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: Well, we'll -- we'llsee after I finish my questions.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: That's good.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: But as I said, I willbe gentle, Ethel.On CR 5, your position there, Patrick, theCCME non-deleg -- degradation stuff, I guess what I'mreading is that you have some issues with the way weapproach it. And I think the question I have is, again,during our community consultations we have been told overand over at the communities that water is the mostimportant resource.They look to the Land Use Plan to ensurethat whatever development occurs, that water isprotected. So the non-degradation policy speaks to that.SSI has recommended source control and management ofwaste, instead of non-degradation. My -- my question is,Are you suggesting the application of specific standards,and if so, which ones? Can you recommend some wording toachieve community goals?And the last part is important, because wetry to encourage planning partners if they have a problemwith the way we've worded something to help us, and, ifthey can, even provide alternative wording or a different

Page 8112345678910111213141516171819202122232425way of doing it. While the Board will make its owndecision, sometime -- quite often it's helpful if you canprovide us some wording.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: I'm so busycommiserating here, if there's such a word, trying tofigure out what -- what you're asking, and what I'mthinking, and what I'm going to say at the same time.I'm getting a little bit befuddled, but never mind.Could you just repeat that last part? Sorry. And on thefirst part, I can answer. Are we suggesting standards?We are.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: And are -- are yousuggesting the application of specific standards --MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Yes.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: -- and if so, what --what -- could you help us out there?MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Well, one (1)in particular is to guidelines for the protection ofaquatic life under the, I think it's the CCME, under theCCME. There's standards there because you can -- it canbe stated anything that we want, but it won't make anydifference until there's actually something that can be

Page 8212345678910111213141516171819202122232425enforced and something that can measured.And so a standard related to theguidelines for the protection of aquatic life is -- isone (1), and then the quality of water. There are arange of standards based on science in -- under the CCMEthat -- that are generally used and accepted. Widelyused and accepted. Is that okay?MR. BOB OVERVOLD: Yes.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Maybe.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: Well, no, that's fine.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Yeah.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: Just if we -- if youhave others, we'd appreciate --MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Okay, well, ifyou need to be furnished with more, we can probably dothat, but I couldn't just give that to you off -- off thetop of my head.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: Yeah, that's fine.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Okay. Thanks.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: And I have one (1)final question, and it's in regard to CR 13. Theposition SI -- SSI has taken is that -- that the CRappears to fetter the discretion of the regulator toestablish and implement its own policy regardingreclamation securities.

Page 8312345678910111213141516171819202122232425So this is when a developer is going to dosomething on the land, the need for him to put up somemoney to clean up after everything is done. Last year wehad a discussion with the Sahtu Land and Water Board onthis issue, and I think people are familiar with it, thatthat board like -- unlike other land and water boards,have not asked for security deposits from developers, andthey could speak to as to why they do that.But what we heard in the communities isthat if somebody is going to do work on the land -- themining company comes in -- then people want to make surethat, at the end of the day, things are cleaned up. And,therefore, its clean-up or reclamation security depositshould be placed. Who holds it, I think can be figuredout, but, in the first instance, it needs to be placed.Now, the fact that you take the positionthat this may fetter the role of another regulator -- andI'm assuming you're talking about the Sahtu Land andWater Board -- well, that's -- you know, that may be thecase or may not be. So, my question is: What is SSIposition on the need for security reclamation deposits?MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Well, Bob, wego back a ways on security bonding, like, to the diamondmines, when we first did that. That wasn't an easy thingto accomplish either, but in this instance I think there

Page 8412345678910111213141516171819202122232425are times when there should be security bonding. But Iguess the question is: Who takes that responsibility?You're saying that the Land and WaterBoard doesn't exercise that, and what is SSI's position.We haven't had a detailed discussion, but the amount ofconcern and the amount of -- the relationship that theSSI, land corporations or SSI representatives on behalfof their communities and districts have -- about theirland and about the environment, it -- it would speakbroadly -- and to have controlled development, that I --I would have well imagined that SSI would favour having asecurity bond.Now, the fact that the regulatory boarddoesn't exercise it is another whole question. Butthat's not something that we discussed. We had a meetingin Good Hope and we -- I'm -- I apologize, but we did notdiscuss that in particular. Now, if you ask me myopinion, I favour it, but I'm not SSI. I'm just theChair.So, I would assume if we went and askedall the Board of Directors of SSI what their -- and whattheir land corporations, from the discussions I've heardon different land issues including litigation we've beeninvolved in, I would imagine that everybody would favourthat. And why the Land and Water Board has chosen not to

Page 8512345678910111213141516171819202122232425exercise that is something that I don't fully understandand appreciate, I imagine.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: Thank you, Ethel.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Uh-huh.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: I -- I'd just like toclose with a comment, and maybe other Board members willhave questions. The comment is to underscore our Chair'sopening remarks where she talked about the importance ofgetting the Land Use Plan done.As almost everyone in this room knows, theneed for a -- a Land Use Plan was identified in the SahtuDene Metis Comprehensive Claim. And, in fact, as Judithpointed out, it had been discussed well before that --the need for land use planning. And in the negotiationsin both of the previous Dene Metis Land Claim and thenthe Sahtu, the Sahtu Dene Metis insisted on a mandatoryLand Use Plan as opposed to voluntary land use plans thatyou see across Canada: some in Alberta, some in BC. Landuse plans that don't really have any teeth.And what I was hearing, and I think otherBoard members were hearing in communities, is that theLand Use Plan needs to have some teeth, and that's why Iasked the question about authorizations. Because what wewere hearing is the need -- it needs to apply to as manyathoriz -- authorizations that the regulators have as

Page 8612345678910111213141516171819202122232425much. And so that's why my question on why are youtrying to limit the authorizations that the Land Use Planwould apply to.You know, an -- and that goes to theissues of conformity requirements, actions, andrecommendations. Because again, communities were sayingthat the Plan has to have some teeth. Otherwise, youknow, it'll just be a voluntary thing, and in our view,the conformity requirements give it some teeth.And what we have is governments and SSIsuggesting that perhaps some of the teeth should beremoved, and, you know, that even the actions shouldn'tbe mandatory. A lot of the actions were developed to tryto address issues put forth by community representativesand organizations.Now, at the end of the day, we will dealwith the mandatory issue, but in my view actions need tohave a higher level. They may be -- may -- may not bemandatory, but certainly need to be -- have more teeththan just a recommendation.So, you know, and we will ask similarquestions when government make presentations like that,but generally my comment is the Board was trying to getwhat we thought was the main thing coming fromcommunities was that the Plan needs to have real teeth to

Page 8712345678910111213141516171819202122232425be implemented. Thank you.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: If I might. Iwould like to think that our position from SSI is notinconsistent with that, that we want there to be -- thatthe sentiments and the wants of the communities be metbecause that's who we represent.In order to make it possible for thoseactions and authorizations to work, they have to beclear. If it's not clear, then they will not beworkable. They will not be manageable, I don't believe.So we had a long discussion about this, and I imaginethat there is more discussion, but please don't mistakeour need for clarity as a means of watering down orremoving the teeth of those authorities.That's not what -- what is intended.Perhaps we could have better stated, but we really -- wereally want to express that there is a need for clarity.Things have to be -- we need to know what we're talkingabout if we're going to be able to actually manage it andmove ahead and -- and enforce things, so that's wherewe're coming from.MR. BOB OVERVOLD: I'll give the mic backto the Chair in a moment, and that's good, but, you know,nonetheless you have recommended that -- that some CRs beremoved, and I'm talking about CR 14 in particular, that

Page 8812345678910111213141516171819202122232425goes to special management zones.And our view on special management zonesis that communities, when we did the zoning exercise,expressed different values. And by that I mean differentthings that might be places where woodland caribou go,moose habitat goes, and while they weren't going to beconservation zones they didn't want them to be justgeneral use zones. And so we identified them as specialmanagement.So it meant that there had to beadditional protections put in to protect those values,like woodland caribou lakes or whatever. And so if youremove a CR for special management zones, then itessentially makes it just like a general use zone.So I -- you know, I -- I'm hoping we couldsort that out because what we're hearing pretty loud isthat while development could occur in special managementzones, they needed -- it needed to happen with additionalprotect -- protection mechanisms in there, and our way ofdoing that was by providing through CRs there, I think 14and 15.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Yes. Excuseme. Under CR 14, it's our understanding from thediscussion, we've had quite a long detailed discussion,that the MVEIRB and the Land and Water Boards already

Page 8912345678910111213141516171819202122232425provide for that. They already do that. So it's not too-- I guess it would be duplicative. We would be -- Idon't know, I -- maybe John could provide a bit ofcontext for this.MR. JOHN DONIHEE: Thanks, Ethel. Thepoint is simply that if you want to have assessment andmitigation and/or monitoring done in these special areas,any time that those values come into play as a result ofan application for a licence or a permit, the MVRMA isgoing to require, at a minimum, a preliminary screening.And the other agencies are already going to take care ofassessment, impose mitigation measures, and potentiallymonitoring if it's required.If the values in these areas areimportant, there will be public concern or there could bethe potential for significant environmental impact andthe application will -- could potentially end up inenvironmental assessment.So, when we looked at these suggestions inthe Plan or these CRs in the Plan, it simply appeared tous that these were going to happen anyway, every time.And that the Plan wasn't adding anything by includingthese as mandatory CRs. So, that's the analysis thatunderlies what SSI said to the Board.THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thanks again, Mr.

Page 9012345678910111213141516171819202122232425Donihee.I think rather than getting into thisfurther, I think this will mean more work needs to bedone to clarify the positions. But I -- I'd just like togive the que -- the mic to Paul Dixon, Executive Directorfor the Water Board, and he may have some more questionsor comments to help us further through this -- thisissue. Thank you.(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. PAUL DIXON: Okay. So basically whatwe're looking at is developing sort of clear andconsistent assessments of security deposits up and downthe Valley. We have changed our -- our tune in terms ofsecurity deposit collection and the recent MGM drillingrig that was here just outside of Tulita, we collected ahundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) insecurities from them for environmental cleanup shouldthat exist.They're also licensed through NEB and havesecurities there for spills. So that -- that hundred andfifty was specific for re -- reclamation and -- andremediation should it be needed.So we have collected security deposits now

Page 9112345678910111213141516171819202122232425within the Sahtu Land and Water Board family, but wewould like to have consistent approaches. I -- I don'tactually believe that an imposition of the fifty thousanddollar ($50,000), you know, minimum -- or I mean thelimit and -- would -- would affect our process too much.And that might even provide some consistency within the -- the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board family, butthat's up for discussion between you guys.MR. CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.Dixon, from the Sahtu Land and Water Board. Now I --just another follow-up question, Paul. Can you justclarify when those policies that you're working on mightbe adopted by the Water Board?Thank you.MR. PAUL DIXON: I can't actually give aclear date on that. We have a number of policies thatwe're working on and this is just one (1) of them, so noclear definition of date yet, sorry.THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Nowthere's some hands up for questions, and we're stillworking on our staff.Heidi, you had a question?MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Thanks. I think thefirst just might be a -- a follow-up question on -- on CR14 and special management zones.

Page 9212345678910111213141516171819202122232425I -- I think what maybe John and -- andEthel were getting to is that on every application, yes,there is a preliminary screening and, potentially, anenvironmental assessment required. And those processesrequire, you know, general mitigation of -- of impacts.What the special management zones areintended to do, through all the work we've done withcommunities, is identify the specific values within thosezones and, in some cases, the locations of those valueswhere we've got that documented, and provide thatinformation into the existing regulatory process.As we've said, the Plan is implementedthrough that existing regulatory process. CR 14 and 15,as worded, are just linking the contents of the Plan tothose special management zones, as defined in the Plan,and to that existing regulatory process.So is this just a matter of rewording CR14 to make that linkage clear, or is this in some waytrying to say, We don't want special management zones?That would be my first question.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Please don'tentertain that thought, because it's the furthest thingfrom the truth that we would try to disallow specialmanage -- management zones.I see the full value of special manage --

Page 9312345678910111213141516171819202122232425management zones. I see them, not only for our area, butI've seen them over in the Yukon and other places, and Iknow what their value is. So that's not the intent atall.Perhaps it's seeking more clarification asyou indicated, but certainly nothing sinister like tryingto get rid of special management zones.MS. HEIDI WIEBE: I guess, if -- if it'sjust a matter of rewording, then, as Bob suggestedearlier, help us out by suggesting wording that makessense to you. In most of the CRs that we have, SSI hasidentified a number of implementation wording issues, soyou clearly have a sense of what wording would work foryou. We don't have that sense yet.So as a follow-up then, I would like toinvite SSI to put forward wording, especially for CR 14and 15, because they are one-third (1/3) of our Land UsePlan that -- that accomplishes what, I think we bothagree, it needs to accomplish.So can I ask that SSI would provide ussomething back on that?MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: We generallycommiserate with legal counsel, and I think that Johnwould be best suited to provide a response to this.MR. JOHN DONIHEE: This is John Donihee.

Page 9412345678910111213141516171819202122232425I do want to remind you that in the initial submissionmade by SSI on the end of March, we didn't raisequestions about what the differences between general usezones and special management zones really were, becauseit appears that the -- the only real difference is theapplication of CRs 14 and 15.And it -- it appeared to us, as weexplained just a moment ago, that what essentially isbeing proposed in -- in CR 14 and 15 are things that arealready being done by the regulatory system or by theenvironment impact assessment system whi -- which is setup by the MVRMA.So I -- I think that question is still outthere for the Board to think about. You know, if therereally is something -- if there are values that requireidentification in this, the special management zones, it-- I'll just observe, I guess, that it -- it seems to methat you've hit a fairly low threshold in terms ofactually protecting them with those CRs.And that, as I understand the way the --you know, the permitting and -- and screening processworks, I can't imagine that any regulator would not lookat the Land Use Plan. I mean, they're obliged to, in anyevent, to make sure that what they're about to approve,or might approve, is in conformity.

Page 9512345678910111213141516171819202122232425So they're going to look at the Plan, andwhen there are special management zones they're mostcertainly going to look at the backup information,identify the values that you're talking about, andconsider them when they conduct their assessment, andwhen they consider what kinds of mitigation measuresshould be applied to the area -- or pardon me, to thepermit or licence that they're going to issue.So again, with that explanation, it justseems that it's -- that there are important things inthose areas, and that they are going to be identified andconsidered when permits and licences are issued.And again, you know, if -- I -- I just --the language of the -- we can look at the language of theCRs, and we're happy to try and provide you with somecomments on how to achieve what we understand you'retrying to do. But -- well, I'll just leave it at that.We'll do that for you.MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Thanks. We'rebasically trying to implement community direction thatsays, These are special areas, and we expect, you know,basically a higher level of -- of scrutiny on projects.So that's what the assessment, and mitigation, andmonitoring is all about.We do have a similar other CR in the Plan

Page 9612345678910111213141516171819202122232425right now. It's CR 16, which applies only in the GreatBear Lake watershed special management zone.And I -- I'm not necessarily expecting orlooking for an answer on this right now, but one (1) ofthe things we have to straighten out before a final draftis -- well, we have to harmonize those two (2).Right now we've got two (2) separate CRsdoing very similar things, but if maybe looking at CR 16if SSI has fewer issues with the wording of CR 16, maybethat becomes the model to push over to CR 14, and therest of the areas.I do have one (1) more follow-up question.It's more administrative in nature, and that is: Wereceived two (2) submissions from SSI. I just want tohave you clarify the relationship between those two (2)submissions. They are, in many ways, substantially thesame but new things were added, so how is the Board toread those two (2) submissions?Does the second replace the first, or doesit build on and add to and, therefore, the Board isexpected to consider both submissions? If you couldprovide us some clarification, that'd be great.MR. JOHN DONIHEE: It's John Doniheeagain. The first submission was made March 31st; thesecond one about the 26th or 27th of April.

Page 9712345678910111213141516171819202122232425The introduction to the second oneindicated that SSI had considered the questions that wereput out in the March 25th Board package. As it turnedout, March -- on March 25th the SSI Board was meeting inFort Good Hope and approving the -- the initialsubmission, even though it was dated a little bit later.So we -- we missed the opportunity torespond to the Board's questions in the March 25thpackage, but did so in the April submission. And betweenthe time of the -- the first submission and the secondone, we had a teleconference with Board staff andcounsel, which was quite helpful, and as a result of thatthere were some adjustments and some changes made to whatSSI had submitted.So the -- for the Board's purposes, wecalled it a hearing submission. It was the basis for thePower Point in -- in Ethel's presentation, but from thestandpoint of the -- the Planning Board, if it -- it --it can use the second of those submissions as the currentoverall position for SSI. And that's probably the onlyone you need to look at.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Hi. I justwanted to add, on CR16 we accepted that. We didn't makeany comments, didn't have any objections, nothing, sothat's our position.

Page 9812345678910111213141516171819202122232425MR. CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now therest of the Board members, if there's any otherquestions, I know I have a hand up for a question fromthe parties.Tom, from SSI, you had a question?MR. TOM NESBITT: I'm working with theDeline Land Corporation.MR. CO-CHAIRPERSON: I'm -- I'm sorry, Iapologize for that, that's for Deline Land Corporation.MR. TOM NESBITT: Okay, musical mics. SoI'm Tom Nesbitt, I work with the Deline Land Corporation,as well as the RRC and the First Nation.Basically, the Land Corporation -- I'll --I'll just use the words "Land Corporation" to -- to referto all three (3) so we don't have to keep constantlyreferring to those same three (3) words.The Land Corporation sees a way throughthis stuff. We think that these apparent differences canbe reconciled. That's our general approach to thisthing. We're supportive of -- of the Draft 3 Land UsePlan in large measure. We think now it's a matter ofsimply refining a few things.That said, in terms of the authorizationswhich Bob 'O' raised, we will adjust that in oursubmission. We support that wider view of the

Page 9912345678910111213141516171819202122232425interpretation of the Act but legal counsel has alreadybegun discussing a way through this and we will besuggesting to you a wider interpretation plus anexclusion list as you sometimes find in environmentalassessment regulations, so a wide interpretation and abunch of activities which the parties can agree shouldnot be subject to the Land Use Plan. We'll come to thatlater.On the matter of assessment and mitigationor security. Where is that one? That's number 13,security. We don't address this in our submissions soI'd like to just say a couple of words now. This isabout requiring security when certain developments goahead.The first issue as I understand it herethat SSI raises is that this may -- what is calledfettering the discretion of the Land and Water Board. Wethink as a legal -- as a legal question that that isexactly what the Land Use Plan can do. So we don -- Idon't -- I don't see a problem with the fettering -- theso-called fettering the discretion of the Land and WaterBoard. To us the matter is an issue of policy not oflaw. And the Deline Land Corporation has alreadysuggested its support for a requirement for security inits submission to the Board of September 30th. So we

Page 10012345678910111213141516171819202122232425support the Board on that one.And in terms of the monitoring, we -- wedon't address this in our submission today so I'll againjust speak to that briefly now.We support SSI in its request that therebe a site-specific monitoring plan with applications.We've already done that in the Great Bear Lake ManagementPlan, but let's just underline that, our support for thatat the present time. So again, I think there's a waythrough this stuff. We can come to a reconciliation ofthese different points of view and we can approve thisplan in the near future.Thank you very much.MR. CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Tom. Nowwe -- we had -- I skipped over my -- one (1) of my staff,he had a question and I apologize for that. And now I'djust like to turn over the mic to him; he had somequestions for the SSI presentation. Thank you.MR. DICK SPAULDING: Thank you, Mr.Chair. I have a quick point of clarification about theintent of the Plan in response to the SSI presentationabout whether there are any CRs that would requireconformity to be determined after an authorization isissued. So I'd like to make that point first.Secondly, there's been what I -- seems to

Page 10112345678910111213141516171819202122232425me a very constructive exchange about -- sorry -- aboutoptions for dealing with security deposits, and I have aquestion for SSI that I think Ethel may have intended toanswer, but I think it's important that I ask it, becauseas John Donihee mentioned, there is a fair bit ofmaterial that SSI has also supplied the Board in additionto the presentation today, and I think we want to comeaway with as much clarity as possible. So that the -- mysecond point I am asking for a response on.And the third one is I guess more in thenature of a comment about Conformity Requirement 14, andthe concern about duplication, or perhaps not addinganything to the system, which was raised by SSI.Is there a different way I could holdthis?(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. DICK SPAULDING: Number one, point ofclarification about the issue of when conformitydeterminations should take place. All of the conformityrequirements in Draft 3 are intended to...(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. DICK SPAULDING: All right. Can

Page 10212345678910111213141516171819202122232425everybody hear me now? And is the transcript taking thisin? All right, thank you.All of the conformity requirements inDraft 3 are written so that there can be a determinationof conformity before an authorization is issued.So to take, for example, one (1) of therequirements that was mentioned in the SSI submissionwhich concerns the distribution of leftover timber, forexample the distribution of -- of incidental harvest ofvarious kinds, the idea of Draft 3 is that the permitthat authorizes timber to be cut would include acondition that waste wood must be distributed, iffeasible, to the communities.So the determiner of conformity would knowbefore the authorization is issued whether there is goingto be conformity because there will be a condition builtinto the authorization. That's just an example and apoint of explanation.The second point goes back to the securitydeposits question. Am I coming across all right soundwise?At the end of the day, it seems to me wewant to come away with a clear sense of whether SSI is --is saying that the Plan simply gives too much directionto the Water Board on this issue, or whether the Plan

Page 10312345678910111213141516171819202122232425cannot give any direction to the Land and Water Boardwhen the Board is considering whether or not to post asecurity dep -- to require the posting of a sec -- of asecurity deposit.So, Ethel, in fairness, I think that is alegal question, and -- and if you'd prefer to refer thatto John, that would be fine for the Board, I'm sure.MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: You made three(3) points, right? You have three (3) questions?MR. DICK SPAULDING: Yes, I did --MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Yeah.MR. DICK SPAULDING: -- but I was onlyseeking a response to the second of the two (2) that I'vedealt with.If you'd like to respond also to thefirst, I -- I wasn't intending --MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: No, I --MR. DICK SPAULDING: -- to foreclose on--MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: -- I thinkJohn should handle it. There was something I was goingto say but I got so interested in what you were saying Iforgot myself. Hang on.(BRIEF PAUSE)

Page 10412345678910111213141516171819202122232425MR. JOHN DONIHEE: This is John Doniheespeaking on behalf of SSI. Perhaps just in -- inrelation to your comment about the incidental harvest, CR10, I think we listed some others, 7(2). It -- it's verypossible this is just a wording problem, but -- and --but, it seems to us, on reading -- it seemed to us onreading CR 10 that what it says, of course, is that theseresources shall be distributed whenever reasonablyfeasible.And, you -- you know, how do you know whenyou're approving the permit that these things are goingto be distributed? And, you know, the -- the point isnot just, I suppose, what goes into the permit or thelicence, but to try to make sure it happens.And -- and that was -- I think Ethelpointed out earlier, that SSI reading of all of theseconformity requirements, was -- was driven by sort of apragmatic, you know, practical approach of trying to makesure that when you read it, you were really clear thatwhat the communities and district land corporations toldthe Board they wanted to see happen. When you read thatCR, you knew it would happen. And so, my -- my commentto yours, I guess, on CR 10 is just it's probably awording -- more of a wording issue.The second point I think you raised was

Page 10512345678910111213141516171819202122232425about closure and reclamation. And, I mean, the -- theconcern that we have -- the SSI submission is sort oflayered, and one (1) of the things that Ethel pointed outthe Board was fairly clear in supporting was that we feltthat the -- in the first planning cycle, the Board shoulddo the conformity requirements -- not do the -- sorry, dothe conformity determination.And the concern that we have is, you know,if you're talking about an activity on the land thatrequires several permits different -- from differentagencies, it's quite possible you'll have agencies thatdon't know much about closure and reclamation trying todetermine whether an operation that's going to take placeis going to conform with that particular CR.That problem is solved if the conformitydetermination is done by the Board, or the Board has adirect hand in it, because that guidance, thatunderstanding, is there and -- and others can benefitfrom that knowledge.So that's the first point. I guess thesecond point I would make is just that, you know, theLand and Water Board are, as -- as Paul Dixon pointedout, are already developing under their authority, underthe MVRMA, guidelines and policies -- these are legally -- they're -- they're statutorily sanctioned policies --

Page 10612345678910111213141516171819202122232425for closure and reclamation.And I'm not going to predict how long itmight take before we have an approved plan, but even withan optimistic timeline, I'd like to suggest that it'squite possible that that framework that the Land andWater Boards are putting together is going to be in placebefore the Plan is approved.So, we look at CR 13 and -- and say, youknow, there's a framework there and, you know, it'sconsidered every time -- even now, I mean, I know whathappens in the other regions. I confess to not beingquite so familiar with the Sahtu Board - Land and WaterBoard - but every single time they get a land useapplication or a water licence application, they gothrough the security analysis.And, so, we were concerned that these arethe people who have the expertise, and we wanted to seethe job done right which means have the people with theexpertise do the job.I hope that addresses your second point,Dick.MR. DICK SPAULDING: I wonder if I couldjust ask a follow-up question to make sure.I -- I think I take what you're saying asbeing that SSI agrees that the Plan may direct the Land

Page 10712345678910111213141516171819202122232425and Water Board regarding the issuance of securitydeposits. But there are some considerations, such ascurrent work that's been do in -- that's -- that's beingdone on policies and guidelines that SSI would like theBoard to take into account when it revises the Plan afterthis hearing to address the security deposit issue.Is that a fair summary?MR. JOHN DONIHEE: This is John Doniheeagain. Yes, and -- and just to be clear, I -- I don'tdisagree with what Tom Nesbitt said about the Board'sauthority through a conformity requirement, an app -- anapproved Plan to actually direct or control.We probably shouldn't have used the word,"fetter," but -- but nevertheless, the Board -- you know,the Board can do that, and I also would -- would justfollow on by saying, as Tom pointed out, there's a policyquestion there, and I think what we're discussing rightnow is the policy issue.MR. DICK SPAULDING: Thank you, Mr.Chair.My third comment concerns conformityrequirement 14, which is one (1) of the two (2)requirements that, essentially, defines the differencebetween a special management zone, and a general usezone.

Page 10812345678910111213141516171819202122232425And this is a -- I think it's probablysimplest and most fair if I -- if I frame this as acomment, but I am inviting a response.And I guess the comment is that when it issaid that this requirement doesn't add anything to thesystem, or that it duplicates the system, that mayperhaps not do justice to what the requirement states inthe Plan.And it may be fair equally, or perhapsbetter, to say that this requirement does compliment thesystem, and does add something to the system, and then itbecomes a question for everyone here to -- to ask, Well,does it add enough, or does it add just the right amount.And let me just try to describe what Ithink the requirement adds to the system. What you havein the regulatory process, and the environmentalassessment process, is a series of discretionaryjudgments.And as the Plan -- as -- as the Board hasemphasized today, a Land Use Plan is of a differentcharacter because once it's been approved -- the Boarddoesn't approve it by itself, but once it's approved bythe First Nation and both governments, the -- the act ofparliament that implements the Land Claims Agreementgives the Plan a binding effect.

Page 10912345678910111213141516171819202122232425So I think what the -- the Board wastrying to accomplish in this requirement is to say, thereare special values in certain areas in the Sahtu region,and they are going to be identified in the Land Use Plan.They're going to be laid out in writing in a simple placefor people to find, and they are in special places, andthey'll be put up on the map, as we saw this morning.If this requirement is left in the Plan,the regulator who otherwise would have discretion couldconsider those special values, could consider thoselocations or not at the end of the day, would have totake them into account. The Plan would, after beingapproved, and as a function of the Act, require that theregulator take those things into account.Now, as you say, this is something thatone wants to see happen in the environmental assessmentprocess. It certainly can happen, and it may hap -- itmay happen as a matter of course in most cases.Of course, the -- the first step in thatassessment process is simply preliminary screening, whichdoesn't have a result at all for the regulators.The preliminary screening just decideswhether that matter goes forward for some further kind ofenvironmental assessment.So, all of the activities that stop at

Page 11012345678910111213141516171819202122232425preliminary screening don't have any result for theregulator until it gets to the issuance of theauthorization.I guess my language is a bit technical, soI'll -- I'll try to boil this down, and -- and finish,but my point is that this -- this requirement mayactually streamline the process, and help to simplify andset the table for both the environmental assessmentbodies, and the regulators in a way that perhaps no onereally disagrees a Plan can and should do.I'll leave it at that, and invite aresponse.MR. JOHN DONIHEE: It's John Doniheeagain. Dick, Don Cooper (phonetic) always used to havethis wonderful sort of phrase that he used when youlisten to lawyers talking about things like that, andhe'd say, What you've just described is -- you've justindicated something where there's a distinction but nodifference.And let's just read what CR 14 says:"Before any land use activity isauthorized within a special managementzone, conservation zone, or proposedconservation initiative, regulatorsshall assess the potential impacts from

Page 11112345678910111213141516171819202122232425the activity on the values for whichthe zone was established, and ensurethat appropriate measures are in placeto minimize impacts to the zonevalues."We start from the position that we assume,and we know from having reviewed the Plan, that the Boardhas worked very hard with the communities to identifyspecial places. They're identified. Those values arerecorded. They're in the Plan.So, you know, that evidence is -- it's ona CD somebody can hand to a regulator if it comes down toit. Someone makes an application to do something on theland, and the regulator is required by law to conduct apreliminary screening.There's no way that that regulator isgoing to ignore what's in the Plan. There's just no waythat that's going to happen. So those values are goingto be considered every time, those special places, andwithin the limits of the regulator's jurisdiction, evenwithout the assessment, you can assume, I think, thatthey will take measures to protect those -- those placesbecause they know that those are the places, and thoseare the things, that are important to Sahtu communities,and participants in the Land Claim.

Page 11212345678910111213141516171819202122232425So, you know, the issue here really is not-- I mean, in -- in the end, this is going to happenanyway, and we're not -- about the only thing that the CRmight do is to force someone issuing a license or apermit that's not on the preliminary screeningrequirement regulation to do this.And there's not much that isn't on thatlist, but -- so maybe there -- maybe there's still somesubstance there, but SSI's point was simply that this CR,really, is going to result in a response from a regulatorthat doesn't differ very much from what the normal workof the regulator would produce anyway.Having said that, you know, it doesn'tmatter if it stays in the Plan, so why don't we justleave it at that.(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. DICK SPAULDING: Thank you, Mr.Chair.And -- and not to belabour the point, Ithink what -- what I would come away for the Board is tosay that there -- there is a difference here and, thatis, that SSI is confident that the regulators will lookat the Plan in these ways, if this requirement were

Page 11312345678910111213141516171819202122232425removed, but the Board's intent was that the regulatorsmust look at the Plan in this way if the requirementstays. Thank you.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now, weare now close to the lunchtime here, and past lunch, andI just want to add, I think Ethel from SSI is probablygoing to be leaving us, and probably not be with us thisafternoon, so I want to take this opportunity, if any --anybody has any questions from the communities, or anyother parties, I would ask that they be raised now and wewould have that question. And once that's done and ifnobody else has any more questions, we can break forlunch. Thank you.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CO-CHAIRPERSON: Obviously, there'sreally nothing at this moment in time. I'm sure -- Ithink John Donihee and Patrick and -- might be stillbehind -- in our proceedings to answer any otherquestions that may be -- Ethel...?MS. ETHEL BLONDIN-ANDREW: Our vice-

Page 11412345678910111213141516171819202122232425chair, Peter Menacho will be doing his own thing with theLand Corporation and his legal counsel, but he'll also beassuming the Chair for SSI with John Donihee. So ifthere are any questions. And I think one (1) thing Inoted too, it's a bit dangerous -- lawyers are likepoliticians, you -- they can steal the agenda, right.So the discussion on the CRs, one (1)thing I noticed in working with this stuff is that wehave -- like I have my presentation, I have the Plan, andhave the slide show, they're all different documents.And then the specific CR statements are all there. Andeverybody's at a different advantage here.Those of you that aren't looking at theCRs, you're hearing the discussion about something andyou're not even knowing what they're talking about sothat's really awkward. And we have a tendency to talkabout things, like, we understand them and assumeeverybody does, that's not right. I've learned that incoming back to work with people that are at differentlevels. You've got to take nothing for granted.So I think there needs to be a furtherdiscussion with the actual wording of the CRs and stufflike that. There's lots of work to be done. I stillbelieve we can do it. I don't think these differencesare insurmountable and I want to state that it would be

Page 11512345678910111213141516171819202122232425erroneous and it would be unfortunate if anyone were toquestion the dedication of the Board of Directors and SSIas a whole on the conservation issues because it's theirland, it's their people, and it's the well-being of theirenvironment, and those values and those special placesthat we talk about.So it's my intention to try to bringtogether the best that we have; to work with Sahtu LandUse Planning Board and to get to the end game. My --that's my intention. If it came out different, Iapologize for that, that wasn't what we intended. Weintended to work with you and to get to the end game.And that's what we intend to do, whatever that takes.Thank you.MR. CO-CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ethel.So hopefully throughout our hearingprocess for this week we would have more clarification,people would understand more about exactly what some ofthe issues are because we still have the two (2)approving parties to do the presentation, as well aswe're talking about the regulator as if they weren't herebut they're here in the room, and Paul Dixon is arepresentative. And it'll certainly be interesting tosee what some of their concerns are as well.So, throughout the week we hope it'll be

Page 11612345678910111213141516171819202122232425more clearer in some of the issues that the Board isstruggling with at this moment in time. So, we wouldlike to now break for lunch and we'll be back in one (1)-- an hour? An hour and a half? Okay. An hour. It'scatered. The -- the lunch has been brought in, Iunderstand so one (1) hour. Thank you.--- Upon recessing at 12:47 p.m.--- Upon resuming at 2:01 p.m.THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there any otherfollow-up questions for SSI? We asked before break ifthere was any questions from the communities or otherparties related to the SSI presentation. If not, we willmove on to community presentations.So, if you want to just let us know if youhave any comments.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: I'd like to welcome theMayor of Norman Wells to the meeting. Welcome, Dudley.MR. DUDLEY JOHNSON: Thank you.THE CHAIRPERSON: If there's no morecomments on the SSI presentation, then we'll have the

Page 11712345678910111213141516171819202122232425Community of Fort Good Hope begin presentations.PRESENTATION BY FORT GOOD HOPE:CHIEF ARTHUR TOBAC: I thank you for theopportunity to present on the -- behalf of the K'ashoGot'ine District, and I want to begin my presentation by-- by thanking the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board as wellas the staff for -- for a good job in getting all partiesto this milestone in the Sahtu land use process.I wish to also acknowledge all past Boardmembers and the staff for their contributions towardsthis Plan, Draft 3. As I said, it's been a long time incoming.For our part in the -- in the presentationto the Board and to the other communities, as well as theother parties to the -- the Land Use Plan, I will beapproaching this from a Band perspective and will -- willbe allowing the District to speak on the District issues.And the land corporations will also speak to -- to theirissues so that we're not duplicating comments all the waythrough.I wanted to sort of go over the -- ourunderstanding and our continuing -- our approach to theSahtu Land Use Plan. When -- and I -- I wanted to juststart off by trying to get back to the true intent of the

Page 11812345678910111213141516171819202122232425Sahtu Land Use Plan from my understanding and from myprevious position in the Land Corporation, back even whenthe days when there the Mackenzie gas project was in fullswing, we got a -- we got a glimpse of what -- what mightbe the whole environment when you have activity withoutany -- any process, or any structured way of managinglands and resources.At the time, there was a lot of people onour lands. There was a lot of aircrafts in the air. Alot of vehicles all over. It got to a point where ourpeople were -- were quite confused as to who was actuallymanaging the lands, and the activities on these lands.So one (1) of the things that came out ofthose -- all of that was -- there was -- was assemblies,assemblies were helping the communities and the people inevery area of Good Hope, whether it was trapping, orworking in the communities, or -- or going to school.They came together, and expressed a lot of their concernsthrough leadership, through land corporations, andthrough Bands.And the mandates that came back to us wasthat we should try to get to the Sahtu Land Use Plan inplace so that there is certainty. Certainty on what youcan expect on certain designated lands. Lands that areset aside for industry to use. Lands that are set aside

Page 11912345678910111213141516171819202122232425for the community to use -- use in both traditional andcultural activities.Now, back when they -- they werenegotiating land claims, and extinguishment was alsomentioned. That word extinguishment...(BRIEF PAUSE)CHIEF ARTHUR TOBAC: Okay, now where wasI? All right, so on the extinguishment was a -- therewas a issue that was brought up by a lot of people thatdidn't really have an understanding what we were givingaway. But one (1) of the things is that the -- thegovernments is always assisting. So over the years wedeveloped a system, and we -- we had in place -- I don'tlike this. There's a lot of feedback.(BRIEF PAUSE)CHIEF ARTHUR TOBAC: Again, before I wasso rudely and -- anyways, when they -- when we movedtowards a system that we were -- were apart of, which wasthe regulatory system that INAC had in place with theland corporations, and in -- in partnership theydeveloped this system where an application would go

Page 12012345678910111213141516171819202122232425through to Sahtu Land and Water Board, and we would beconsulted.And it was always face-to-face meetings.There was never ever a letter, or a messenger. We neverreally did think that it was appropriate that messengersdeliver some application to us, and we would discuss itwith the messenger. It was always with the companies,and the heads of those companies that spoke with -- withthe communities.And there was a process that over theyears we had gotten used to, and -- and each year INACwould also have the rights issuance process, and wealways knew what to expect, and although at the time, andwe've worked through a lot of the issues, but there wasalways, because of a lack of infrastructure such ashighway or transportation system that would allowindustry to move into the areas a lot quicker, andmobilize a lot quicker, those were just the drawbacks ofthe system.But overall it did work for us, and we'vealways relied on this system to move a lot of the -- theexploration, and the -- and the activities on ourtraditional lands together. We moved those thingsthrough.As part of our communities -- our

Page 12112345678910111213141516171819202122232425communities' wish to -- to get more control of the landsand resources, we also move towards a protected areastrategy with GNWT, and with -- with other agencies.And it's still many years in the works,and we're still coming to the end of our interimwithdrawal period, but just recently we began anothermeeting and they're picking that up because of the -- theperiod that -- in which they did their assessments were -- were just completed, and they're just reporting back tothe communities. So again, that process will -- willbegin again with a lot more activity being done in thecommunities with the people.And overall, all this is -- is good. Imean, we're -- we're trying to establish some processesthat are people are -- are comfortable with, and thatthey'll agree with.And -- and this is -- the thing I'mgetting to is that we are trying to create a balance.We're not -- we're not trying to be resistant todevelopment, or exploration at all. We are just tryingto develop a process where we can balance the two (2),and we're hoping that through the Sahtu Land Use -- SahtuLand Use process, this would be the -- the ideal vehiclefor us to move forward.And so we're at this juncture here today,

Page 12212345678910111213141516171819202122232425and we wanted to -- to bring everybody's attention backto the -- to the intentions of why the Sahtu Land UsePlan was -- was pursued.For many years, our people have alwayswondered, Are we ever going to get to the horizon when wecan see the end period of where we might be able to havean agreement in place, because we are very much hoping to-- to get to that place so that we do have certain --that we establish certainty and security for our people.It's not always about the industry'sperspective on -- is on all this. It's about thelandowners. We are landowners, and that's why we'regoing to be allowing the districts to speak on the issuesof lands.As a -- as a Band and a communitygovernment, our people look to the Chief and council as agoverning body in every community, and it's the same inGood Hope. We, in turn, meet with the land corporations.We all work together. Every organization in Good Hope isworking together towards moving these things, andfinalizing a lot of the -- the items that are -- arepassed on to us.You know, when we -- they tell us to movetowards self-government, we -- we moved towards it.Right now we are quite behind in the process, if we're

Page 12312345678910111213141516171819202122232425being compared to say the community of Deline, or Tulita,but we're trying to -- we're trying to move in a cautioussort of way.And we -- we do the same thing with lands,lands and resources. We compare it to down south. It'salways better to err on the side of caution, because it'shard to undo any damage that's been -- being done to theland or to the water. It's hard to bring it back to astate where it's safe to -- to be on, or safe to useagain.And so that's why it's very important thatthe wording, and -- and the conditions that are appliedto this Land Use Plan is very important as well.And our position is that we agree with alot of what Mr. Donihee has worded or put in place.There is some areas that could be clearer, like wherewe're witnessing this morning the dialogue that's goingon between the Board and Mr. Donihee of the SSI.Now, when we do look at -- look at thewording, it's quite -- quite broad and it does need to betightened up a bit in some areas. But, overall, I thinkin the areas of authorities and jurisdictions, thoselines do need to be cleared up a bit as well, too.Because, like I said, we do rely on theSahtu Land and Water Board to process applications for

Page 12412345678910111213141516171819202122232425projects, but we also need to rely on the Sahtu Land andWater Board to make sure that the process is beingfollowed through, and they are the enforcement body thatmakes sure conditions are being adhered to on any LandUse Plan, on any land use application or a water licencebecause water is important to our people as well, so muchso that it's always been an issue that's brought up quiteoften -- either the drinking water, the quality of water,or the threat of upstream pollutants coming down.So that our community now needs to have aplan in place so that there is a secondary source ofwater for the community to use should anything occurupstream of us.Now, all these things are issues that needto be brought forth so that the Sahtu Land Use PlanningBoard does need to have these on the record; thatwhatever they're working on and that's been put forwardby the communities, as a basis.And so I don't want to stay too long onthis overall bigger picture I think that we'reapproaching it from except to say that this is somethingthat our people have told us to pursue and that's whywe've always supported a Sahtu Land Use Plan; an agreeduponplan by all parties so that we have an understandingof what land will be opened for industry and what lands

Page 12512345678910111213141516171819202122232425will be set aside for our people to use for traditionaland cultural practices.Because it says right in the land claims,"promote and preserve traditional andcultural practices including language"which is an issue that's been quiteimportant to our young people.Over the last while we -- we are movingtowards educating the young people in -- in areas wherethey are knowledgeable with the claims, as well asgovernance, because this is something they need to know.This is for their -- for their benefit that we do allthis work. But it also needs to be passed on, so anywork that -- that the Sahtu Land Use Plan does shouldalso be promoted in the schools as something for them tolearn.Separate -- separate documents such as theSahtu Land Use Plan, land claims, all need to be taught.There's -- these are tools for our people to use, and itwasn't something that was wasted. We used these to moveour communities ahead, to move our people ahead -economically, socially and culturally. We used thisdocument to do all these things.At some point in time when we do get to anarea where we will be self-governing, we will need Sahtu

Page 12612345678910111213141516171819202122232425Land Use Plan in order for us to benefit from the land aswas the intent behind the land claims.So, with that, I'll pass the -- the -- themic on to my learned colleague here, Heather, who willspeak for the District viewpoint. Mahsi.MS. HEATHER BOURASSA: Thank you, Arthur.My name is Heather Bourassa and I'm the president of theYamoga Land Corporation, but I'm also the president ofthe K'asho Got'ine District Land Corporation.And when the Draft 3 had come out in July,the District, being the Yamoga Land Corporation, theAyoni Keh Land Corporation and the Fort Good Hope MetisLocal 54 had come together and decided that we weresubmitting our comments on the Land Use Plan together.So we had submitted comments, and now I'mgoing to speak on those as part of the district landcorporation, but George here sitting beside me willrepresent Yamoga and there's also representation from theother land corporations.On October 13th, 2010, the K'asho Got'ineDistrict Land Corporation submitted their initialcomments to the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board regardingDraft 3, and those are on their web site.Our comments today are meant to expand onthose comments that we deem important, and the District

Page 12712345678910111213141516171819202122232425supports the SSI submission to the Land Use PlanningBoard, so the bigger items that I do not cover arealready covered in -- in the SSI submission.In our district, the main issues in ourcommunities are participation, control, like authorities,our protected con -- our proposed conservationinitiative, and our group trapping area.After many years of working with thecurrent regulatory process, without the Land Use Plan,our district would like to see that the final Planprovides -- provides that the process will be more effect-- effective, and not -- not hindering the process.As to what we have submitted in ourcomments, we are interested in strengthening the areas ofcommunity engagement, community benefits, and theprotection of traditional knowledge.Our focus is on maintaining meaningfulparticipation at the district level, so we do support anyconformity requirements that reinforces that.Also, we would like to see language in thefinal Plan that would be inclusive of a potentialsuccessor government in the Sahtu so that they would berecognized.And as I think most of you are aware now,Fort Good Hope is in the process of developing a

Page 12812345678910111213141516171819202122232425protected area, the Ramparts protected area, and we hadjust recently finished having a meeting with protectedarea strategy going over time lines and boundaries forthat.There are no definite boundaries for thatinitiative at this time. And also there is no defaultzoning designations for the withdrawn lands that do notmake it into the final conservation area. There's nodefault zoning designations for the surface andsubsurface parcels that are with -- within that withdrawnarea, as well.So, we appreciate the Board's patience inthis matter as we do have -- we do need more time tofinalize this, and those comments are forthcoming.We had addressed our concern with theacknowledgment of our group trapping area in oursubmitted comments. I would like to touch on this againbecause the subject is serious and sensitive to theK'asho Got'ine.We would like to see the reference to ourgroup trapping area in the body of the Sahtu Land UsePlan rather than only in the background report, becausethe K'asho Got'ine consider this our traditional landbase, and we feel that any document that is including ourland, and our district, should recognize our group

Page 12912345678910111213141516171819202122232425trapping area, and we had suggested places for it in oursubmitted comments of October.There were some other questions that wereraised from our submitted comments of October 13th, andthey were also discussed in our January follow-up meetingwith the Land Use Planning -- Planning Board, and I'llspeak to some of those now.The District currently has no interest inchanging any of our current zoning, including theconservation buffers surrounding Mountain River. Webelieve there's no need to amend the buffer, even withthe changes that have happened in Tulita District.The issues concerning Lac Belot will beaddressed by the Coville Lake delegation, being that thisis a concern from their community. We have since foundthat we are satisfied with the Table 8 wildlife setbacks,minimum altitude, and sensitive periods.We -- also, being that Fort Good Hopecurrently uses the Mackenzie River for drinking water,there was a concern that the community catchment shown onMap 7 was not adequate. But we would like to discussthis further because there may be other mechanisms togive the community comfort in regards to waterregulations and water quality.Also in our comments we had asked

Page 13012345678910111213141516171819202122232425ourselves whether conservation zones should restricttourism and waste disposal and we feel that if ourrecommendations to amend conformity requirement number 2were included in the Land Use Plan that would beacceptable to us, and that would allow our communities toparticipate in those decisions as needed.Our expectation of this hearing was tohave an opportunity to clarify some of the issues fromour district but also to give some clarity from -- to getsome clarity from the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board.We would like to see a discussion inregard to the Sahtu working group. The district is notreally clear on what the working group's mandate would beand how the operation would be funded.We also had some concerns regarding thechairperson's letter dated February 18th, 2011, becauseit is not clear how the districts would be able toconduct themselves as an authority to enforce conformityrequirements.The letter states that the District LandCorporations will be responsible under the MVMRA toimplement conformity requirements when consenting to theuse of Sahtu lands owned by them or when grantinginterests in those lands such as leases that includerights to land use.

Page 13112345678910111213141516171819202122232425And under the current regulatorystructure, it is not appropriate to try to impose on ourdistrict the responsibility to enforce compliance withthe Land Use Plan with respect to the land that it owns.So we're hoping that we'll have discussions about thoseitems in the next couple of days.So in closing, we do appreciate thisopportunity to discuss these issues with the otherparticipants that are here and we look forward to movingforward toward a final Land Use Plan. Mahsi.MR. GEORGE BARNABY: My name is GeorgeBarnaby, I'm the Vice-President of the Yamoga LandCorporation, so I'll speak for Yamoga Land.The Board has had a lot of discussion on -- on the Land Use Plan, nothing det -- not the detailsbut the whole intention -- the intent of the Land UsePlan. And we got into it because we think it's going tomake things better for us - to protect our lands. We'llhave more involvement. Things will be better.At this time anybody coming on our landscomes to talk and negotiate with the community so theytalk to the Band, to the land corps, the district, RRC.Sometimes there is a lot of concern from the communitythen they talk to everybody. They have big assembliesand they talk to everybody. And they talk about any

Page 13212345678910111213141516171819202122232425concerns on the land, the people that know where theywant to go and they bring up their concerns.We also talk about benefits like jobs andthings like that. We talk about monitoring and that'susually carried out by the RRC but the -- that's in placealready. There's traditional knowledge, and this comesfrom the people that live right where they're going, notfrom -- you know, so the people that know that area thenthey talk to them.And sometime these people take them out --if there's a lot of concern they, take them out to lookat the land where they want to go. After all that, thenthere's agreements made on how things will -- willhappen. So there's agreement with the community, a lotof involvement, and things go ahead. So what we see isthese things in place in the Plan. And added onto, Iguess, strengthening them and making them better so thatour people will feel safe on their own land.There's some concern that through the LandUse Plan there would be boards or other things like thatcreated that will take away this process that's beingcarried on with the community and we don't agree that --with that. We don't want nothing created, we want thepresent system strengthened. We don't want somebody elsegiving approval on our land except our own people,

Page 13312345678910111213141516171819202122232425traditional K'asho Got'ine land.The other concern is talking only to theland corps. The land corporations hold selected lands.Land ownership. Fee simple land ownership. But we alsohave a government which is under our Dene and we -- theFirst Nation people. So we want -- we have to talk. I -- I see just like the band and the chiefs are beingpushed out and for me that's very bad for all of usbecause then they take away from that traditional landsand they talk only about selected lands. So we have torecognize the chief and the council on our -- all ourdistrict lands.And added on to that the claims is notfinished. The claims looked after land ownership but westill have to address the government. And then when welook at the government, then that's to govern the wholedistrict lands. So that has to be completed.The other thing is we expect to work byconsensus, which is our traditional way that we -- weagree with each other and then things go ahead and youvote if you have to, but usually there's consensus beforethat.So moving into that voting is not a goodway because we really have no authority in each other'sdistrict. So the only thing we should be doing is

Page 13412345678910111213141516171819202122232425consensus that we agree what we're going to do together.And that voting usually is just a formality after weagree together.So when we had our assembly -- I forgetwhat time that was, somewhere in the -- early in theyear, but when the Elders took us back to square one,what -- what - what were doing with this; why are we inthe Land Use Plan. So it's for these reasons -- so allthe other related details and so on should -- should befor this.Now, the process should be for a lot ofconsultation because I know the government's going tocome back later and said, Oh, you agreed to all of thisalready. This land is open, you agreed to that, and allthat.Even if we agreed, we still have tonegotiate the -- the details afterwards on how thingswill be done. I think Arthur mentioned that INAC comesand talks when they're going to put land up fornominations. Those kind of things aren't good, but westill negotiate afterwards anyway.I'm running out of time, so I think theElders were good to bring us back to square 1, so that'swhat I'm trying to do -- what -- what the intention was.Thank you.

Page 13512345678910111213141516171819202122232425MS. HEATHER BOURASSA: I think that Rogeris representing the Fort Good Hope RRC, but he had somequestions that he'll save to later. And according to mystopwatch, that was 30 minutes.Now, I don't know if you have questions.QUESTION PERIOD:THE CHAIRPERSON: Heidi has a comment.MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Heather, you had a -- aquestion earlier about the Sahtu working group. We don'thave a specific discussion on the agenda, but I willspeak to it a little bit right now and, you know, perhapswe can have some discussion throughout the Hearing.The intent of that Sahtu working group ispost-plan submission and approval. As we work towardsthe next five (5) year review of the Land Use Plan, to beable to bring people together more often the way we aretoday to have the discussions on key land use issues.Because it's through these collaborative discussions thatnew solutions and ideas can be put on the table.So the intent is rather than continuingplanning, as we have been doing, getting submissionsindividually, that planning in the next five (5) yearcycle would move ahead through perhaps quarterly meetingsof a key working group.

Page 13612345678910111213141516171819202122232425In or -- in order for that to beeffective, each party that is in our overall planningprocess would have to be a part of that working group.So, for instance, right now we have one (1) key contactwith INAC, one (1) key contact with GNWT; we have a keycontact with SSI and each of the communities. We have akey contact with, for example, the Chamber of Mines, CAPPfor the oil and gas industry. We have one (1) or two (2)environmental groups that are active.If you think of how the protected areastrategy moves forward, each of those areas has a workinggroup with representation from all of the keystakeholders affected by those decisions as part of that.This is modelled, in part, after that andthose areas move forward by bringing everybody together.So the intent is to establish a working group for theSahtu region to advance land use planning issues.One (1) of the comments made by George,and I'm not sure if it was about the Sahtu working group,but there was concern raised about having another groupor another board that might take away community decisionmakingauthority.If -- if that was about the Sahtu workinggroup, then that's certainly not the intent. It's a wayto move the Land Use Plan forward so that five (5) years

Page 13712345678910111213141516171819202122232425from now when we do that five (5) year review, we havenew information and decisions on the table that we canput in the Land Use Plan on things like cumulativeeffects that this Plan is not touching on right now.Community engagement guidelines, whichmany people have spoken to the need for. Monitoring --what would be the appropriate things to monitor withinthe Sahtu region? What should be the focus on individualareas?These are the key issues that come upagain and again in every meeting, so, why not bringeverybody together on a regular basis not once everythree (3) years to try and get some discussion going onthose.The issue of funding is outstanding. InDraft 3 the Board had talked about making this groupvoluntary and self-funded. The Board itself is notfunded to cover travel and participation funding foreverybody else, but we recognize in the comments thatcame in following Draft 3, a number of organizations, andnot just communities, raised a flag with the fact thattheir budgets are so contrain -- constrained that theywould not be able to participate. So this is anoutstanding issue that our Board will have to talk aboutand address in some way as we move forward to a final

Page 13812345678910111213141516171819202122232425draft.We don't have an answer at this point,though. So if anybody has suggestions this is a greatplace to put them on the table. Thanks.THE CHAIRPERSON: Ruby...?MS. RUBY MACDONALD: Does a PAS processimpede the Sahtu land use process? Like, if you're inProtected Area Strategy process, then in the Sahtu landuse process, does one have to be done before the other orwhat?(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. RUBY MACDONALD: My question is:Does the PAS process, Protected Area Strategy process,impede the Sahtu land use process? Does one have to bedone before the other? Do they have to be done togetheror how do they both work?MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Thanks. That's a goodquestion, Ruby, I'm sure it's on many people's minds.The short answer is, no, the ProtectedArea Strategy does not impede the land use planningprocess. They are two (2) separate processes. So theLand Use Plan is broader than the Protected Area Strategyin that our job is to plan for all land use. And in that

Page 13912345678910111213141516171819202122232425regard, one of the things we plan for is the protectionof areas, and we call these areas "conservation zones."We recognize that there is a separateprocess called the Protected Area Strategy, and this is ajoint process between the Federal and Territorialgovernment with representation from the Aboriginalorganizations on their overall steering committee. Andthis is to identify areas for permanent protectionthrough Federal or Territorial legislation.So the Land Use Plan can identifyconservation areas but there is the separate processestablishing permanent protected areas. And the Land UsePlan in order to provide that comprehensive holistic viewthat brings everything together needs to watch and seewhat's happening in the Protected Area Strategy and bringthat information into our process.So our -- our process has been toparticipate in those meetings wherever possible,understand what's going on, but recognizing that theyalso include full involvement of all of the appropriateparties. We, essentially, take the results of theirprocess and put that into the Land Use Plan.And when I talked about the zoningearlier, I identified those areas as proposedconservation initiatives. So for the interim, because

Page 14012345678910111213141516171819202122232425they're not quite finished, we give them interimprotection through the Land Use Plan. We have to treatthem in some way, generally they have the -- the landwithdrawal already at Stage 5. I hope I've got the stepright.And then once they're finished, the intentis that they would primarily be managed through thelegislation under which they are established.Where we run into some difficulty, such asright now, is as they near their -- the end of theirprocess, the boundaries are going to change. And becausethe Plan has that overall view, if some areas get leftout, it becomes a blank in our map. What do we do withthat area? How do we zone it?So it's -- the issue right now is as we'retrying to finalize the Land Use Plan, we need to fill inall those little gaps. If an area is left out, how isthe Plan going to zone that area?And we look to the communities, as wealways have, to provide that initial direction, that --that primary feedback. And the only area that'soutstanding right now, as we've discussed earlier, is --is the Ramparts and we recognize that the K'asho Got'ineDistrict and Fort Good Hope, specifically, are -- areworking to get those answers for us.

Page 14112345678910111213141516171819202122232425Does that answer your question, Ruby?Thanks.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: Any other comments? Ifthere isn't any other comments, then we'll move forwardfor Colville Lake to make their community presentations.PRESENTATION BY COLVILLE LAKE:MR. JOSEPH KOCHON: Our presentation isnot going to take that long. It's just myself. I gottwo (2) -- I got two (2) Elders with me to sit. They'lljust hear out today and if they have any comments, thenwe'll take tomorrow during the Elders' time to -- topresent. You know, they're still consuming whateverthey're hearing today, so it's...So, I -- I don't have three (3)organizations here, but I'll just do my best to just tryto represent the community as a whole. I didn't do no --no long presentation or anything so. I just had thismorning to write up a short little something, so.In opening, I just wanted to -- to thankthe Land Use Planning Board for setting up this Hearingso that the -- the Sahtu communities can have their input

Page 14212345678910111213141516171819202122232425into Draft 3 of the Land Use Plan.Before I get into my input, I'd like tosay that this is our land that we are talking about.We're -- we are here working with you to seek ways todevelop rules that would be used to guide the -- the --the whole Sahtu Land Use Planning Board in the future andfor the use of the land.As we continue to occupy and exercise ourrights within our respective area as our ancestors havedone, it's our duty to control the land to ensure otherparties do not govern what's rightfully ours and, mostimportantly, including us in meaningful consultation.Some of our concerns have somewhat beenraised during our joint meaning in the fall in Fort GoodHope which the K'asho Got'ine Land Corporation hassubmitted.We can't really look at settlement landswhen we talk about our lands. We have to talk about allthe lands within our area, which is not just thesettlement lands. Our ancestors have taken good care ofthe whole area, and that's what we intend to do is tomake sure that we include all the lands. And the landsthat we talk about, it goes way beyond -- far beyond --the land claim area in the Sahtu.Although a lot of the lands have various

Page 14312345678910111213141516171819202122232425titles to it. There's lands called "Crown lands,"there's lands that are called "Sahtu lands" and"Commissioners Land," so everybody is laying claims to aland that used to be ours. And so even though everybodyhas names on it, we still consider it's our land andintend to -- to make sure that whatever happens on it,it's -- we have the final say.So, just get into some of the -- thetopics that you want to hear on this -- during thisHearing. There was a general question regardingconformity. Although we, as landowners, don't have anyexisting policies to guide any development activities,our input is most valuable information for any activitiesthat should happen on our land.On number 1 you have proposed changes tozoning. If you see the map, you know, everybody aroundus have a lot of conservation area, lot of restrict --lot of special management areas, and earlier you seen amap on the -- on that slide which it has changed quite abit since the -- the first draft came out.The reasoning is that when we first beganthis, we didn't quite understand what this was all aboutuntil we started asking questions and what type ofpolicies that are going to guide some of these areas suchas conservation areas, parks and PAS.

Page 14412345678910111213141516171819202122232425And as we went along some of the areas,the community didn't have much input into them. Some ofthe areas were -- were larger than what the communityreally thought that they had input on. But once westarted asking questions, it wasn't really the intent ofthe community.So probably about a year ago we -- westarted over again. You know, we're very cautious, youknow, how we move ahead, you know, because if we startcreating so many protected areas in our area, and there'scertain things that we want to do for our future, it'sgoing to be hard to -- to -- to make any changes.So -- so that's why we kind of justreduced it to the areas that we really want to protect.So that's why you see a lot of general use area in our --our area. I just wanted to clear that when you get into-- to zoning.During the -- the last meeting we had withthe Land Use Planning, there was a question raised to theLand Use Planning Board regarding the Anderson River. Iguess it's considered a -- a conservation area. And Iguess, based on the last meeting, the sizes seemed to beincreasing, so that has to be clarified. I think it's --if we work together, I think we could -- we could clarifythe actual size of that -- that conservation area,

Page 14512345678910111213141516171819202122232425proposed conservation area.As for the Belot Lake, I think the --there again, I guess there was concerns from the Eldersnot to -- to use that lake for a future -- for industryuse. I was just wondering if -- if that's going to applyif -- for when we -- when we do our annual winter road.I'm jut wondering if we could -- if that's going to applyto that also. So I'm not sure who can answer that.But if -- if the Elders get their wish tonot use that lake, then I'm just wondering about ourwinter road, if we're going to still be able to use thatarea or use the water.I just had a quick question regarding that-- the different type of zones with respect to a specialmanagement conservation areas. There's a couple ofdifferent types of zoning that the Land Use PlanningBoard uses and I'm just wondering if these rules arebeing developed by the land -- Sahtu Land Use PlanningBoard or has it been adopted from somewhere else?The next question -- the next thing on theCR 2 community engagement and traditional knowledge. Ithink just based on experience, you know, if anyactivities are going to take place in our area. We knowthat industry and government, they're going to meet withus and -- and we know that they're going to have to

Page 14612345678910111213141516171819202122232425obtain meaningful consultation before they do what theywant on the land. So, a lot of these structures arealready there. And so that's what -- I just wanted to --to say that.Under CR 3, under community benefits.Just for industry, we're still considered frontier lands.And the oil companies, mining companies, they get richfrom -- from finding the minerals, oil and gas from ourland. So if there's no benefits then I don't think the -- it'll be good for us, if we don't have no benefits outof whatever projects that -- that they do on our -- ourlands.So I believe that having a good solidbenefit agreement is -- and leaving something worthwhilebehind in the community wherever they work, I think it'll-- it'll work better than having no benefits. Any typeof benefit agreement with who -- whichever affectedcommunity.That's the only way things will work.Today a lot of the communities, they don't have the moneythat industry have, so we have to put a balance with itand we have to make sure that -- that the land is alsoput back to the state it was when they first came so.So with -- with regards to benefits, Ibelieve that having a good solid benefit agreement is --

Page 14712345678910111213141516171819202122232425would be good for everybody.Under CR 35 or 5, yeah, "WatershedManagement and Drinking Water," we need more independentassessment to monitor all the watershed and drinkingwater in the Sahtu. Because, in most cases, the operatordoes its own monitoring, and this I question because we,ourselves, we need certainty that -- that the water orthe creeks are -- are not affected.Under CR 4, arch -- archeological sitesand historical sites and burial sites and I'm not surewhat type of rules apply in other areas, and I think thatneeds to be looked at. If there is any existing policiesthat guide development in other areas.I'm sure we could reach some kind ofcompromise so that it's -- whatever we develop here, it'sreasonable to -- to all parties. When activities takeplace, it's pretty well case-by-case. It all depends onwherever activity is going to take place, and if it hasto do with our lands, it all depends on which area thatthey're going to work.There's some areas that we have burialgrounds. There are some historical areas, and we knowwhere all the wildlife migration route are, so this Ijust really didn't have an answer for but just say that'sit's pretty well a case-by-case, and it's pretty hard to

Page 14812345678910111213141516171819202122232425predetermine a policy for that.Under number 3, it says implications ofremoving mandatory actions or placing them in bindingdocuments. I find it very -- this point it wouldn't --the governments around us implement mandatory policies ona daily basis, and -- and they don't want us to developany mandatory requests under the land use planningprocess here.A lot of times some of these policiesdon't work in our favour, and those are the reasons whywe want to make something that workable for us in theNorth here. We live in a different climate from what'ssouth, so a lot of the policies that sometimes guideindustry or any development, we can't always agree on.But if we want something to work, then wehave to -- we have to make it mandatory, and I think thisstill has to -- it needs some -- some more working on.And if something's going to be mandatory, I -- I believethat as long as it doesn't remove any existing authorityfrom whoever the landowners are, or any other parties,that's how I -- I look at it.So that's as far as I -- I wrote thismorning before I jumped on the Plane, and didn't get towrite on any other issues about the -- I was sort ofreading and then writing at the same time as I -- the --

Page 14912345678910111213141516171819202122232425the package, you know. I had a couple of weeks, but Ihad -- I was so damn busy that I never got around to it,so that's it. Thank you.THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there any commentsto his presentation? Heidi...?(BRIEF PAUSE)QUESTION PERIOD:MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Hi. Joseph, maybe justsome -- some clarification and maybe one (1) question.On the Anderson River, I think you said itlooked like it was getting bigger. Just to clarify, thathasn't changed since we mapped it with the community inJanuary 2009. It does have a 1 kilometre buffer aroundit. So my question back to you is:Do you want that buffer reduced? Theother lakes in that area have a 500 metre buffer. If youcould maybe respond or get back to us on that, that wouldhelp us and we can make any final changes on that. Thankyou.MR. JOSEPH KOCHON: I'm just going on thequestion that was raised during the last meeting, so Ithink that was a question posed to yourself and I thinkthat just has to be cleared with the community, if -- if

Page 15012345678910111213141516171819202122232425that -- that zone is too big or too small.MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Sorry, I just need toclarify. Are you say -- is the zone -- do you want thezone bigger or smaller? I'm -- I'm just confused withthat. Or stay the same?MR. JOSEPH KOCHON: I think during thelast meeting we had in Colville Lake there was a questionposed to yourself regarding that zone. If -- if it -- ifit was expanding or if it stayed the same. And I'm notsure if you responded at that time. I think that's whatI was getting at.MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Oh sorry, okay. Sothen the answer is no, the zone has not changed size intwo (2) years now, and there's no intention for it tochange.I have another question, I guess. Withrespect to -- to Lac Belot, this is one (1) of theoutstanding questions that we want to get answered. CR20 currently does restrict withdrawal of water from LacBelot, Stewart and Tate Lake, other than from theoutflow. This requirement was brought to us from, as yousay, the Elders in your community and it would apply toall types of land use, which would include the winterroad.During our previous discussions we had

Page 15112345678910111213141516171819202122232425brought it back to your community, Joseph, as to whetheror not you want the CR either deleted or amended in someway to address that conflict. We're still certainly opento further direction.We had discussions back in the communityin August I think when we were there and, certainly, thisis an issue of interest to both DFO, Fisheries andOceans, and the Land and Water Board, and they've bothprovided some additional information on this question.It does come back to us wanting some finaldirection from the community about how to best addressthis. One (1) suggestion that has been given to theBoard, I think it was from INAC but I'm not sure now, wasto insert additional wording that just would say, nowithdrawal from these lakes unless there is no feasiblealternative. So if -- if a proponent could thendemonstrate that there was no other possible source fromwhich they could take water, then that would allow theflexibility to have water withdrawal.So we -- the Board is looking for, youknow, a final answer from the community of Colville Lakeon whether you want this to stand. But the answer toyour question is, yes, as worded, it would blockwithdrawal for the construction of your winter road.

Page 15212345678910111213141516171819202122232425(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. JOSEPH KOCHON: Hello. We can maybedeal with it -- this some more later on. I guess I stillhave to talk with the community on this, and if they wantto continue the position that they don't want to withdrawwater, then it's something we're probably going to haveto live with.But then we still need time on this one to-- to -- to make sure that -- that's it's what they want.THE CHAIRPERSON: I think what Heidi wassaying is at some point there's going to be moreconsultation with DFO on that and with the community.There'll be further consultations on this Lac Belot totry to come to some resolution.UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, was theanswer.THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, okay. Is thereany other comments on Joseph's presentation?(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. HARRY HARRIS: Just a brief commentbefore we leave the --THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you state your

Page 15312345678910111213141516171819202122232425name?MR. HARRY HARRIS: Yes, Harry Harris. Irepresent the Renewable Resource Council in Fort GoodHope. I have something that I wanted to present givingyou some insight on, like, Ruby's question of the landclaims were -- if the land claims were a protected areastrategy. And I really believe that, like, was -- likedevolution process, some devolution process and pastlegislation will affect that protect -- protected area.And also the Land Use Plan.I'm -- I'm going to present one of thelegislations we have to do that with as a people. Backin a -- just pertaining to the park management plan, backin the Federal days they -- the -- the Government used toinitially attack all the buyers and -- and up till 1983this devolution process started happening where theGovernment programs and services were given to theterritorial government.By the management act they sort ofstreamlined it. It doesn't guard against the Species --the Species-at-Risk Act. Like, I'm -- I'm talking aboutthe caribou. I brought this question up twice. Like,right -- like, right now the -- the EnvironmentManagement Act says we have to fight fire five (5) milesinland and (INDISCERNIBLE) and values at risk.

Page 15412345678910111213141516171819202122232425I'm talking about the -- all that otherland is left to burn and where I have to bring this up toyour attention is that, like right now we -- we lack --we don't have the caribou that we used to have.And what I believe hap -- is happeningwith the fires that they -- they're allowing land to burnoff and especially in between Good Hope and ColvilleLake, it's all kind of land beaming with west caribou.But the -- the last about fifteen (15) years to allow allthat land to burn off.And I found out just recently that ittakes about a hundred years for lichen to grow, and so inother words, we have to wait a hundred years for thecaribou to come back.Now, that really affects -- thatlegislation really affects our (INDISCERNIBLE) areastrategy plan.I -- with me living on the land, I don'twant our caribou to be forgotten (INDISCERNIBLE)misplaced biologists, something that will affect thedevolution process. What -- what else should happen is(INDISCERNIBLE) letting, you know, ENR administer theprogram (INDISCERNIBLE) management is get the chief andcouncil to see which fires we should put (INDISCERNIBLE)there's nothing in it we could use. I think -- it might

Page 15512345678910111213141516171819202122232425be the way I see it, is a natural process (INDISCERNIBLE)on the land is that the fire -- I don't think so, butthis -- at the cost of even re -- replanting spruce treesbut, you know, they're -- they're forgetting about theanimals (INDISCERNIBLE) the peopleLike, especially, like talking aboutstreamline -- streamlining the program. Years ago weused to go at -- we used to go to a fire (INDISCERNIBLE)in the summer time. And just thinking about, you know(INDISCERNIBLE) had troubled kids to something that is(INDISCERNIBLE) everything that's involved in thisplanning process. Thank you.THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is thereany other comments right now? If not, we'll move on toNorman Wells' presentation.(BRIEF PAUSE)PRESENTATION BY NORMAN WELLS:MR. RODGER ODGARD: Okay. I'd like tostart by welcoming everybody to Norman Wells. Ruby wouldlike me to apologize, and I guess I should apologize fora lot of our people not being here, and our leader wasinjured in the spring time in a big wind, so(INDISCERNIBLE) is slowly recuperating there. But I'd

Page 15612345678910111213141516171819202122232425like to welcome you guys all here anyway to Norman Wells.To start off, I'd just like to -- to say acouple of comments, and for me this whole process is areal learning experience for the last fifteen (15) years.I was one (1) of the first field workersin Norman Wells fifteen (15) years ago with the Land UsePlanning Board, and now -- bringing us to now I've --I've seen a lot of changes.And this morning it was mentioned thatsome things like land claims, and devolution, and selfgovernmentshould be taught in the schools, and I -- Iagree with that. And like I said, I also -- I also thinkthat some of our experiences in the protections fieldshould be taught in school through Aboriginal studies, aswell.Like I said, I -- the -- for me, it's areal learning experience to learn in fifteen (15) yearswhat it means about the politics of the day.You can see where initiatives change overtime and leadership. And you can see it in -- in theColville Lake area, in the Tulita District area, and --and Good Hope and Deline area. We're all pursuing thisin a different way.You can see around Colville Lake, they

Page 15712345678910111213141516171819202122232425have no interest in PAS or the Land Use Plan in theirarea. In Fort Good Hope, in the mountains, they have 100percent PAS identified in the mountains. In the Tulitadistrict, we have no PAS identified in the mountains, andwe've directed that we want this -- the Land Use Plan totake care of the protections in the mountains.The -- the issue of SGN in the -- the lastcouple years came up this morning, and came up at lunchtime, and I was asked, after talking to the Chief and toHeidi and Ida, about the SGN area, and our initiativeswith the PAS in the mountains.And this morning Heidi mentioned the newSGN area, which is in the -- the new revised map, andsome of us thought whoa, this new SGN area, is that PAS,and after consultations with her and the leadership, no,we -- we have -- right now we want to do everything inthe mountains through the Land Use Plan.Once that's complete, whenever it is,maybe then -- we know there's probably places, and thereis places, that might need to be protected, and then wewill possibly go to PAS for further protections, butthat's the mandate that was given, and we just wanted toclarify that for everybody.And so I was asked to do that, and Iwanted to make sure I did that. But like I -- like I

Page 15812345678910111213141516171819202122232425said, the -- the processes we've -- we've been goingthrough should be taught in the schools, as well.It's -- it's a real eye opener, and I knowit's taught in political science, and Aboriginal studies,politics of the day, and how things can change overnight, and that's -- that's the scarey part, and that'swhy we need to nail this down, and move on with ourlives.That's -- anyway, in regards to the -- tothe final draft that we're looking at now, we've beenmeeting in Tulita with the District. We've brought thoseconturn -- concerns to -- to our Land Corporationmembership, and RSC membership, and we had concerns atThree Day and Florence Lake that were taken care of.We also advised that we would like to seethe whole watershed in the mountains protected, like theDehcho, and after talking to Heidi again I think we're --we're happy there.So I can't say that I'm comfortable withall the legal jargon in the -- in this book that'sstarting to come out, but we're happy with theboundaries, and the initiatives in the zones. Maybe Rubymight want to say some more to this.So that's pretty well all I have to say,other than I wanted to mention that the original field

Page 15912345678910111213141516171819202122232425work was done -- when it was done, it -- it includedeverybody, Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, and all uses ofthe land.So I'd just like to thank the Mayor forbeing here, and everybody for coming to Norman Wells.And I'd like to -- I'd like to apologize to some people.I was a little touchy last night, but I'm -- I justwanted to say something. A little joke.I'm a little touchy these days after whathappened to Bin Laden, but anyway. Okay.(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. DUDLEY JOHNSON: Good afternoon. Onbehalf of the Town of Norman Wells, I would like towelcome you all here. Okay. Now, someone just gave me apat on the back; I don't know what for yet.Rodger says this is a learning experiencefor him. Well, just put -- put a newfie in there. Thisis a learning experience, but I've been around here forseventeen (17) years now, and mostly as a -- as anobserver, but now that I'm involved in the politicalside, I'm getting a clearer picture of what this Land UsePlan Board is about. I see Mr. Kakfwi is smiling becausehe knows me quite well.

Page 16012345678910111213141516171819202122232425I'd like to thank the Sahtu Land UsePlanning Board for all their hard work. You gave me alot of reading, and a lot of work, and I thank you forthat because I needed it.The big thing, yes, protect your land;protect your traditional sites; protect your language,because all you've got to do is listen to me speak, andyou know I protect my language, Newfoundese (phonetic).Our presentation, which you all have, Ihope, is a joint presentation on behalf of the Town ofNorman Wells and the Chamber of Commerce.When I look at all the land in this area,and in all the communities, I see a vast potential, but Ialso see where the land has been misused, and I'm not --and I'm not here to lay blame on any group or any person,it's what I see.But with this Land Use Plan, what concernsme the most is what I see in your communities with youthwho are looking for work and crying out for training,because you know my other role. That they wantdevelopment. They want jobs for their future. You haveto protect your youth, but you do it by planning wiselythe development of your home land.When I look at this Plan, I see only 31percent of the land there for general use, 27 1/2 percent

Page 16112345678910111213141516171819202122232425is going to be conserved as national parks, con --conservation zones, historical sites, and proposed aconserve -- a conserva -- I always get a problem withthat word -- conservation initiatives. Land useactivities are severely limited in those zones. 41percent is designated special management zones. All landuse activities are expected to proceed with greatercaution than in general use zones.50 percent of the land is within known I -- mineral potential are located in zones which prohibitmanual exploration and development. Be careful that youdon't cut off the hand that's going to feed you and youryouth. Don't overregulate to turn away development.Think about what's come -- coming in the future here.Hopefully we'll have a road. Hopefully we'll have apipeline. Economic development that will bring jobs toyour communities.So don't put so many layers of regulationthat you turn economic development away. I come from anarea where I seen new roads come in, where I seendevelopment occur, in northern Labrador. And you can dothis by -- by planning it right, and by working togetheras a group, but allowing development where you can reapthe benefits, not outside sources. You reap thebenefits.

Page 16212345678910111213141516171819202122232425I also noted that there are furthermineral mapping going on which could also lead toconflict with the reg -- proposed regulations right now.What will happen when that occurs? Will development bestippied or -- or stymied by this Land Use Plan? Or willyou have to rezone?There are a lot of areas in all districts,all part of the Sahtu that have not been mapped yet.What resources do you have there that will be untappedfor your people. I believe you should treat it like abusiness. Look at the benefits, and look at the thingsthat will not work for you.Currently, you have eleven (11) parcels ofland up for bids. Does the zoning maps available -- are--are they available to -- to people whose going to bidon those areas of land for oil and gas development. ThePlan leaves out the corridor for the Mackenzie gaspipeline. Where does that fit in the Sahtu planning?Now, I'm no expert, and I'll be the firstone (1) to admit it, and I don't have the knowledge thatall you people have in this room. You know your land.You know its potential. You also know that theopportunity is there now for you.The other questions or concerns we had isabout layers and layers of regulation. We do know that

Page 16312345678910111213141516171819202122232425the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regulates allwater bodies. Putting a buffer zone around all waterbodies in the Sahtu settlement area, is this reallyrequired if it's already covered by the Department ofFisheries? It's already in place. Or is this anotherdouble-layer.We don't know that the lands designated asgeneral use have the highest potential for your economicdevelopment, and for your benefits, whether it's mineral,oil, or gas, whatever.Also, will this regulation impact ontourism, and how will it impact on tourism, especially asit relate -- relates to the wat -- the waterways. We'renot sure what effect that's going to have.Our also -- our concern also isoverregulation, and all these conformity requirements,which include just about everything: communityengagement, traditional knowledge, community benefits.Be careful that -- again, I repeat -- you don't cut out -- cut the hand that's going to feed you byoverregulating.(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. DUDLEY JOHNSON: Now, I can say

Page 16412345678910111213141516171819202122232425because I'm -- because of my background in being aNewfie, I don't understand all the regulations and -- andrequirements, but there is a lack of clarity in thedocument.There's also regulations in this documentwhich conflict with other regu -- regulations already inplace. That needs to be ironed out. Which willoverrule. Which will be the one (1).The Plan also does not clearly define howand when applications must meet the requirements laiddown in your Plan, whether by a separate and additionalapplication process, or will the Plan and itsrequirements will be included in the process that youhave now. Is this going to be two (2) or three (3)separate applications. We don't know.When the Land Use Plan is created andimplemented, its purpose is to regulate the use of theland. Many of these conformity requirements addressed inthe SLUP are covered under the Sahtu Dene MetisComprehensive Land Agreement, through access and benefitsagreement. They do not belong in a Land Use Plan.They're already in place.We also ask could the words "permitteduse" and "discretionary use" be used in place ofconformity requirements. We really don't know what all

Page 16512345678910111213141516171819202122232425that's going to mean.We also would like to see a flow chartthat explains the process for applications as it goesthrough the process, to clarify it so people willunderstand it better.(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. DUDLEY JOHNSON: Finally, I wouldlike to say that this is, and what you are doing, is alot of hard work, but I do say to you, you've come a longway in the Plan. Now all you need to do is to work outthe kinks, as we say, and make the process more fluid.Once again, thank you very much for your time. Andbecause I'm a working man, I'll apologize for not gettinghere, but my job tells me I have to be in the office. Iwant to train young people too. Also, get somedevelopment. I'm training fifteen (15) undergroundminers over there right now, so they want jobs. Thankyou very much.THE CHAIRPERSON: Heidi...?QUESTION PERIOD:MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Thanks. Actually, Ihave questions for both of the presenters. I'll start

Page 16612345678910111213141516171819202122232425with -- with Rodger. It's not really a questionactually, the first one. Just to clarify what we diddiscuss at lunch. You know, Rodger was asking I think onbehalf of some of his members about the outcome of ourdiscussions in Tulita, and yes the direction that theBoard received from the Tulita district is that those two(2) new SGN areas would be conservation zones. That isthe direction that we got.Now, there was an intent and a question tocontinue discussions between the community and CWS onwhether or not there was still interest in pursuing anational wildlife area within that new area, and myunderstanding is that those discussions are ongoing atthis point. And I'm looking at Paul Latour in case hewants to say anything about that.MR. PAUL LATOUR: I'm not sure if this aworking one or -- it seems to be working. That's ourunderstanding too, although in terms of the nationalwildlife area the -- we're a little unclear as to how thecommunities want to proceed with it.I think the main question is, for us, ifyou proceed with the conservation zone type of approachin the Plan, and assuming the Plan is approved, thenthere's a -- you have absolute protection for a five (5)year period. Whereas with a national wildlife area

Page 16712345678910111213141516171819202122232425there's no guarantee that you will end up with fullservice and self-service protection at the end of theday.So we need to know from a communitystandpoint what the commitment is towards this areamoving forward, given that there is this uncertaintybetween the two (2) products, if you want to call themthat: the Land Use Plan and the national wildlife area.MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Okay. I hope thatclarifies where things are at for you, Rodger, and yourpeople.The second, I guess, follow-up questionthat I have outstanding for between the Norman Wells LandCorp. and the Tulita District, and I don't know if wehave any representation from the Tulita District heretoday, but after all of our meetings in Tulita betweenthe two (2) communities concluded on SGN and thatrezoning, the Board received a separate submission fromthe Norman Wells Land Corporation, and Rodger spoke tothis, asking for conservation zones to be establishedacross all of parcels 105, 106, 107. And I pointed tothose during my presentation.This is in conflict with the resolutionthat we got from the Tulita District. And as thelandowners in that area we would look to the Norman Wells

Page 16812345678910111213141516171819202122232425Land Corp. and the Tulita District to jointly work outhow these three (3) parcels should be zoned.Now, the Norman Wells Land Corporation'ssubmission did say that if it was not possible to makethese parcels conservation zone for any reason then theywould accept a special management designation, whichessentially takes us back to the Draft 3 zoning, which iswhat the Tulita District told us. I would assume at thatpoint that we would then revert also back to the smallerconservation zone around Three Day Lake that currentlyexists.We did mention that there would be achance for follow-up comments. If the District is heretoday, I think it would be a good time to hear from them,but if not, then we would hope that following thishearing, fairly quickly after this hearing, that we wouldhave the District, and the Norman Wells Land Corp worktogether to give the Board a final answer on how thosethree (3) parcels should be zoned.Moving on, I just want to make surethere's no other follow-up on -- on that. I'm beingdirected to move on.So the town of Norman Wells, thank you foryour presentation. I do have a couple maybe points ofinformation as opposed to questions, but maybe one (1) or

Page 16912345678910111213141516171819202122232425two (2) questions.You mentioned -- sorry. You were askingwhat - what zone type the oil and gas parcels are in thathave been put for bid. I have to look on the map in thecorner here, but I believe they're -- they'repredominantly in general use zones. That information --our zoning is available on our web site. It is myunderstanding that, you know, INAC makes that informationavailable when the call for bids or for nominations goesout. And certainly we have a number of representativesfrom INAC here today who could confirm that, or -- orcorrect me if I'm wrong, but that information is put outthere.With respect to the Mackenzie Gas Project,you'll see this in INAC's presentation as well, but thePlan previously addressed the Mackenzie Gas Project inDraft 2, and as we were going through refining the Plan,there was a considerable Board discussion that the Planis directed at all land use, and we are not projectspecific. The Mackenzie Gas project, while it is a megaproject,it's still project specific. And for thatreason we took out the portion in the Plan that dealtspecifically with the Mackenzie Gas Project.We've had, you know, back and forth withsome parties as to whether or not that should go back in

Page 17012345678910111213141516171819202122232425for clarity purposes only. That said, whether it's in orout, the Board has taken considerable care to make surethat the project -- the Mackenzie Gas Project is notblocked by the Land Use Plan.The terms that we have under zoning toallow access, transportation, infrastructure, cover anyof the issues associated with the Mackenzie Gas Project.So just to give Norman Wells, the town, that sense ofclarity, there's nothing in the Plan that would restrictthe pipeline.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: You were, again, askingabout how the Plan would be implemented, whether therewould be separate application processes.In the Board's presentation this morning,as we said then, the Plan is implemented through theexisting processes in the regulatory system. So ingeneral an application would come in to the Land andWater Board. They could either determine conformitythemselves, or if there's any question, they could referthe application to the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board.And we would then check the application. Is thisfollowing the rules of the Plan?

Page 17112345678910111213141516171819202122232425If it is, it continues seamlessly throughthe rest of the process. If it isn't, then yes, the Plandoes act as a barrier for applications that -- andactivities that don't conform. So -- but there is no newprocess. It's just a change to the existing process.I think that's sort of the key points thatI wanted to clarify for you. When we did speak back in -- in December, the offer is still on the table if at anytime if anybody -- this is to everybody. If anybody everneeds clarification on how the Plan should beimplemented, or the -- the terms or -- or what our intentis, we'd certainly be happy to come down and give apresentation to the town counsel to help explain someaspects better. We recognize not everyone has time toread three (3) or four hundred (400) pages, so.(BRIEF PAUSE)MS. HEIDI WIEBE: Sorry. Yeah, I missedone (1) here that I was planning on commenting on. Youtalked about the fact that DFO already manages water.Between them and the Land and Water Boardthey're certainly better able to speak to this, but theyalso manage things like water withdrawal or differentaspects of it. When the communities have identified

Page 17212345678910111213141516171819202122232425certain fish lakes, for example, as critical it's not insome cases that they don't want -- that they want certainrestrictions. It's more that this is a very criticalplace for us, and we just don't want developmenthappening.So, in -- in some cases, where we've gotlakes identified as conservation zones, they've told usthat it's not enough to just put conditions ondevelopment. It's that these areas should not bedeveloped.Now, the Plan does allow the flexibility,as we said, through the -- the initial zoning CR. Ifit's absolutely necessary that they have to take waterfrom some of these lakes in conservation zones or crossthem or build a road, then the Plan allows for that withrestrictions, right? You avoid the sensitive areas.But we do act on the community directionto tell us which lakes should be open for development andwhich ones should not. So I just wanted to offer that byway of clarification. And if there's any further followupquestions, I'd be happy to take them.THE CHAIRPERSON: If there's no othercomments, we'll call a break for fifteen (15) minutes.--- Upon recessing at 3:45 pm

Page 17312345678910111213141516171819202122232425--- Upon resuming at 4:05 pmTHE CHAIRPERSON: So, if there's no othercomments for Norman Wells presentation, then we'll moveforward with Tulita.PRESENTATION BY TULITA:(INTERPRETED FROM NORTH SLAVEY INTO ENGLISH)GRAND CHIEF FRANK ANDREW: Thank you.Today we are talking about this land use planning. Thisis something that we have been speaking about for a longtime. And in 1970 is when -- in the Dene Nation days,that was the time when they started this whole discussionon the land use. And -- and today because of ourregional claims we are on our own and have to do our ownland use.And -- and it was through our claims thatwe decided that we will do our own land use claims. Forthe last five (5) years we've been talking about thisLand Use Plan, and today it's -- now is the time that iscoming to the finalization of this draft. And for thelast five (5) years we've been talking about this landuse mapping.I would -- for myself, I would like to

Page 17412345678910111213141516171819202122232425have everything in place for ourselves, like whateverthat was said that should be worked on. And if -- if wework on it cooperatively then we will do like a good landuse mapping for -- not only for our people but for ourchildren. And we cannot let go of the lands that we wereborn and raised on, that we still utilize today.Our Elders were the ones that told usthese are the lands that we would like to have kept andthat it's on those basis that we are working on our landuse mapping.For the future of our children, they --for them to continue to live off our fish, aquatic life,and our wildlife, we have to protect these. And -- andthis land when my father was living they used to talkabout the lands around here where there is -- wherethere's caribou, where there's moose, that's where there-- there's other wildlife because they'd be around aplace where it was a good feeding area for them. And --and if you were to follow a moose as far as it goes, it's-- that's where you'd see other wildlife.This land use planning, this is for thefuture of our -- our children, and this is what they aregoing to continue to maintain themselves as -- asAboriginal people. There's a lot of things that we -- wehave to talk about and we have to support each other in.

Page 17512345678910111213141516171819202122232425And we have transients that are livingwith us too. And in the mountains since 1960s we hadoutfitters in the -- and my father and other -- otherrelatives that have lived up in that area as well. Andthen if you guys are going to work in that area -- ifyou're going to work in that area they said it has to beour own people that work in that area. And any wildlifethat is shot in that area too would be given back to thecommunity and we agreed.This is something that was worked on for along time, but now like it -- we came to an agreement onit.In 1970, 1980, around in that -- in thoseyears Stan Stevens (phonetic), I used to work for him,and that was the last time we worked across in that area.And our land, we've been talking about itsince the past. Even if we try to make a goodrecommendations or whatever, it always seems to be notadhered to.Our people are -- maintain themselves onthe land and they took very good care of the land.Whenever they -- they shot any wildlife they used it to -- everything up. And as well as the water. Wheneverthey were around the water they were very careful.Whatever they know is on the land they

Page 17612345678910111213141516171819202122232425took care of it and that's what you call conservationmanagement. And because of that everything seems to bethe same today. We still have plenty to eat and if we --if we maintain -- conserve our wildlife, then we willcontinue to -- to have it. And so that's what I think ofwhen you talk about land use planning.And our Elders, because of their con --their conservation of wildlife in the past, we still havewhat we have today. And recently from there, the caribouand wildlife has been depleting or so they say. We can'tclose off -- prohibit hunting.So this water -- those lakes, StewartLake, Tate Lake, those lakes I think they should becontinued to be conserved. Our Elders that go into themountains, if there's no food, wildlife, then they go tothe fish lakes. And by -- by harvesting the fish theyhave something to eat.These are things that our Elders spoke tous about. And today the industry, mining, through themwe know like what kind of work can be done on our land.And they're talking about employment for our youngpeople, but for me I don't think that it's going to belike that. That is what I'm worried about, concernedabout.Across from Tulita, Husky Oil is now

Page 17712345678910111213141516171819202122232425working. They've been working there for how many yearsand -- and they said they are going to train our peoplethrough that access and benefits agreement, but to thisday nobody, not even my children, are -- none of themhave taken any training of any kind. And so when youtalk about training I agree with it, but there's -- there-- there's a lot of work that could be done. So we can'tsay that there's no employment; there's a lot of thingsthat we can do in regards to that.Our children today whenever they go out onthe land they're sure -- they're sure pleased wheneverthey go out. We had school children go out just recentlyand -- in Fort Good Hope too they take their children outon the land as well. And I see that and it reallypleases me.Even though we -- we cannot live like thepast, like our ancestors, we can still take the storiesof our ancestors.And maybe the transients might have a lotof food and things today but then according to ourstories there will come a time when everything willbecome scarce. They said whatever little provisions youhave to take care of yourself like your mitt -- your netsand your traps, your axes, all of these things take careof it, because you are going to be needing it in the

Page 17812345678910111213141516171819202122232425future.And then -- and sometimes when -- when we-- when we see money come in to our community we'rethankful for it because we need to make a living too.And our Elders that are -- that are to -- around today,they know all of the stories and whatever of the past ofall that happened.And this land use planning, I think thisis something that's very important for our futuregenerations. And this conservation zone, this issomething that's -- that's very important for us. Andthis is where the -- the wildlife that we depend on wedon't want to deplete. So now it's very hard to -- wecan't -- we can't grow, or we can't ha -- we are not likefarmers where we could have domesticated beef and porkand things like that. We have to depend on our land.What -- what we -- what is -- what is onthat map -- not that long ago they were talking about itand they were saying that there was some things that hasbeen changed on it. And this special management zone, Ithink this is some -- this is something that I agreewith.And I was told that this specialmanagement zone, those of us that live in Tulita, when we-- when we work on -- when we -- we can work in certain

Page 17912345678910111213141516171819202122232425areas of land that doesn't allow for other -- otherpeople or development, so I think that is somethingthat's good for us.And -- and recently, the beginning of2011, that's when we changed some things and we opened upsome lands for general use. And -- and today there'sparcels of land, eleven (11) that have been opened up.It's just like they've turned over some land to be openfor development. For me, it's not right. I don't agreewith it.Though as a band, they talk aboutconsulting with us but for me that didn't happen inTulita, this consulting. I've been thinking about it,like what do they mean by this consulting.And the ones that are sitting here thatare around the table with us I'm very thankful to seethem, because you shouldn't hesitate to be asking themany kind of questions. If there's anything that you'renot sure of, you shouldn't be shy to be asking becausethey're all here to help us. They all want to help us --how they can't -- and they're supporting us, that's whythey're all here with us. And for our -- our children,this land use planning is going to be something that'svery important and -- and for this -- for now that is allI will say.

Page 18012345678910111213141516171819202122232425Our Elders helped us with our land useclaims and to -- there's a lot of people sitting herewith us, I'd like to thank them all. And then there's aperson that's sitting with us that's a millionaire, I'dlike to say congratulations to him, and thank you verymuch.(INTERPRETATION CONCLUDED)CHIEF FRANK ANDREW: Mahsi.Congratulations on becoming a millionaire. Thank youvery much.MR. DOUGLAS YALLEE: Okay, my name isDouglas Yallee, I'm the vice-president for the TulitaLand and Financial Corporation. I'm going to speak onbehalf of the Land Corp only. This land use planning, we-- we had a lot of meetings with the land use planninggroup and different agencies, and we had a hard time tocome up with an agreement amongst everybody.So what -- what the land corp has --corporation has done is we put all the Elders together inTulita and did a workshop with -- with the Elders. Andwe invited Norman Wells to be part of that group. Andthey came up with those whole changes that Frank istalking about on the map. So whatever the Elders have

Page 18112345678910111213141516171819202122232425done there was -- that was their work and we're -- we'regoing by what the -- what they -- what they directed usto do, so.And you've got a couple of Elders backhere, Maurice and Leon they -- they were taking part inthe meeting so they can probably speak to it more betterthan I do, so I'll just hand it over to them.(INTERPRETED FROM NORTH SLAVEY INTO ENGLISH)ELDER LEON ANDREW: Leo Andrew. LeoAndrew. He's going to be talking on behalf of TulitaLands Corporation who he works for, I think. This landuse process has been going on for quite a long time.February 25/26 the -- that protected areastrategy, I think Shuhtagot'ine Nene across from Tulita,they revised that whole -- it used to be conservationzone and then they -- they revised it to a general usezone and -- and we made it smaller. If you look at themap, there -- there's a really large conservation zonebut that's been down -- we cut it down. And the reasonwhy we did that was because government had told us thatthat area has really good potential for minerals, and sothis is -- this is why we -- we had a workshop and wetalked about the Shuhtagot'ine Nene. So this is where we

Page 18212345678910111213141516171819202122232425-- we changed from the conservation zone to general usezone.And we still looking at the possibility ofmaybe a section of the conservation zone in theShuhtagot'ine Nene to -- to -- to see if it's possible wecan still do a con -- a CWS, Canadian Wildlife Services,can -- can assist us to protect that area.I believe I -- what Frank was saying,talking about wildlife. Wildlife depend on their food,that -- that's how they survive because of their --wherever their food is. Caribou, if you put caribou --you -- you put caribou on Halfway Island those caribouare not going to survive because there's no food forthem. That's why it's important when you put caribou --when you talk about caribou in certain areas like MooseHorn River, those are really good areas, good habitatsfor caribou. This is why we listen to our Elders when we-- when we say we want to protect certain areas, we dothat because we believe that the Elders are -- aretelling the truth and this is why we -- we work together.So thank you very much for listening tome. Maybe Maurice might say something too.(INTERPRETATION CONCLUDED)

Page 18312345678910111213141516171819202122232425MR. DOUGLAS YALLEE: Okay. I've gotanother RRC member from -- from Tulita. It's FrederickAndrew. If he wants to say a few words he can.(INTERPRETED FROM NORTH SLAVEY INTO ENGLISH)MR. FREDERICK ANDREW: My name isFrederick Andrew and I'm also going to use my language.Most of it Frank already talked about, but I will maybetouch on it a little bit.The Sahtu Land Use Plan -- Planning Board,they've been negotiating and working on this draft forthe past thirteen (13) years. And here at this hearingit's every -- it's good to see all these different peopleand organizations that are here represented. And thenthis is good because we can find a solution to -- to goto the next step with the Sahtu Land Use Plan.Myself, I'm from the mountains. There'slots of fish lakes, like close to Red Dog Mountain. Weknow that developers are interested in those areas and --and it's so important that we have to protect some ofthese really sensitive areas that are wildlife habitats.One (1) thing that we have to be priorizedis the -- is the wildlife. They -- they should comefirst because wildlife, you know, they -- they're really

Page 18412345678910111213141516171819202122232425sensitive. They can hear sound, noise, that are -- any -- any developers are producing, any kind of noise,because wildlife can hear from long distance and theywould avoid it.In the mountains, about the wildlife,caribou, moose, bears, grizzlies, those kind of animalsthat I'm referring to has five (5) years -- maybe fifty(50) years ago we've had -- those big game outfittersthat were starting to work in the mountains. In fifty(50) years they've been hunting and -- in the mountains.We don't know exactly how many animals they have taken.Those animals that are out there, it's like we have --it's like they're in our freezer. Like they're in ourbank. It's a bank there where we can withdraw when wewant.That's the thing that we should beaddressing these days: big game hunters, outfitters, thatare operating in the mountains. Maybe we should limitthem, limit the -- the -- the area that they're huntingand using because I think by rights wildlife -- concernsfor the wildlife should be a priority. It's justsomething that I wanted to say. Thank you very much.(INTERPRETATION CONCLUDED)

Page 18512345678910111213141516171819202122232425MR. DOUGLAS YALLEE: Okay. That's thepresentation from the Tulita Group. Thank you.THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.Is there any questions for the Tulita Group?Ruby...?QUESTION PERIOD:MS. RUBY MACDONALD: I'm just wonderingif we're going to hear from the Fort Norman Metis?MS. DYANNE DOCTOR: Hello. Okay? Soundsgood? Hi, my name is Dyanne Doctor, and I am one of thedirectors that sit on the Fort Norman Metis LandCorporation and I have Lori-Ann Lennie as well that siton the Fort Norman Metis Land Corporation.It was -- I mean, I hear a lot of, youknow, the Sahtu Land Use and Water Board and the SahtuLand Use Planning Board. You know, they've been here forquite some time now, and I'm really not familiar with --with this issue. But from this morning, listening to allthe -- all the, like, the submission report and the --the Sahtu organizations -- the -- the land orders -- ontheir perspective of -- their comments on the -- on thiswhole meeting here today is a -- is a -- is a learningexperience for me and Lori-Ann as well.I know Tulita District Land Corporation,

Page 18612345678910111213141516171819202122232425would have been nice if they could have come in and --and -- but I'm -- I'm sorry that -- that -- that they'renot here to do a presentation on behalf of Tulita. Imean, we do have reps -- you know, we have Tulita LandRenewable and -- and I'm glad.With the -- the whole process of listeningto how many years of -- you know, how long this processis going to take, and what they've learned so far, andlistening and getting feedback from the general public,you know, your Elders are the most important informationthat you can get. I mean, they give you a lot ofinformation and -- and they're the ones -- the mostimportant that we -- we take to -- to provide for them,to -- to give them that.And, like I said, I -- I'm -- I'm notfamiliar with this whole issue of the San -- Sahtu LandUse Planning Board, and I -- and, like, learn -- what wasgoing on this morning, the caucusing between the SahtuLand Use and SSI, you know, I -- I don't know who plays,what role they play, and what responsibilities of the two(2) groups.It -- it was nice to hear though. Youknow, I mean, there's a -- there's a lot of outstandingissues that need to be dealt with and, you know, I -- Ijust -- I am glad to be here.

Page 18712345678910111213141516171819202122232425As a director, I -- I know I should be --you know, I mean, like Rodger said, it -- it -- he's --he's been in there for fifteen (15) years and he's stilllearning. So, you know, I -- I -- I've been sitting onthe Board for, you know, three (3) years now, but, youknow, I -- I -- it's just -- you know, I now -- I have alittle bit of clarifi -- a little -- to -- to see whereeverybody's sitting at now.You know, I -- I -- now I know what SahtuLand Use Planning Board is all about. I don't know all,but I'm -- I'm learning. So it's -- I just want to sayI'm glad to be here and -- and I'm taking notes and I'mtaking as much notes so I can bring it back to, you know,to my board and -- and -- and get their general commentson this. And maybe they'll give you a report or apresentation or some -- something in that effect.But thanks -- thanks to you, and I hopethis meeting will go well. Thank you.MR. DOUGLAS YALLEE: Well, Judith --Judith, hang on. I want to say something, too, on thisland plan -- land use planning issue.Because we have a land claim agreement andwe're already protected on certain -- certainties,certain issues. Is land use -- is the land use planningoverlapping with some of these issues? That's one (1) of

Page 18812345678910111213141516171819202122232425my questions.(BRIEF PAUSE)MR. DICK SPAULDING: Yes, the Land ClaimsAgreement includes a number of rights, and one (1) of therights in the agreement is the right to co-management.In other words, the right of the Dene Metis toparticipate in decisions that are made about all the landin the region, and there are different boards set upunder the agreement where that right is exercised.One (1) of them is through the RenewableResources Councils. Another one (1) is through theEnvironmental Impact Review Board. There's also aregional Land and Water Board. And at the front end ofthe Review Board, and the Land and Water Board, is thisBoard that we're -- that you're meeting with today, thePlanning Board. And it's, as Heidi explained thismorning, intended to be the sort of gatekeeper or thefirst stage in the process for approving land use.So to sum up, again, the Land ClaimsAgreement sets up the Planning Board so that the Dene andMetis can participate in decisions about all of the landin the region.

Page 18912345678910111213141516171819202122232425(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: Paul...?MR. PAUL LATOUR: Thank you. PaulLatour, Canadian Wildlife Service. Yes, I'd just like tofollow up on a comment I made earlier regarding theShuhtagot'ine Nene national wildlife area and the -- thesequencing of -- of that -- that issue.Of the -- on one (1) hand theShuhtagot'ine conservation zone under the Land Use Plan,and -- and on the other hand the Shuhtagot'ine candidatenational wildlife area, and I'm still not entirely clearwhat your view of the sequencing of those two (2)initiatives is.Am I to understand that you want toproceed with Land Use Plan conservation zone, and thenonce the -- the Land Use Plan is approved and -- andimplemented, then you would be willing to entertain aShuhtagot'ine or -- or discussions around a Shuhtagot'inenational wildlife area. Is that -- is that what I'mhearing here? Thank you.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: Is somebody from the

Page 19012345678910111213141516171819202122232425Tulita District going to respond to Paul's question?(BRIEF PAUSE)CHIEF FRANK ANDREW: I think right nowwhen -- when we talked about it before, about SGN, and,you know, the -- and we went into the land withdrawalsfor the -- that has been refused. So I think after thatpeople decided that we should go under the Land UsePlanning. So that's why everything went the way it istoday.So I don't know if we're going to go backto national wildlife, but that's going to be a call fromthe District. And there's nobody here from the Districtto speak to that right now, so. But when the Elders andeverybody else got together with the District, that'swhat they decided to do. So that's why they cu -- cut alot of it into half here. Thank you.THE CHAIRPERSON: Any other clarificationon that, Paul, or...?MR. PAUL LATOUR: No.THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.MR. DOUGLAS YALLEE: May I -- Paul, I'msorry, but I can't speak for the District Land, they'renot here so, I know what you're saying. But like Frank

Page 19112345678910111213141516171819202122232425said, it was brought up at the -- at the workshop inTulita and this is what the Elders had advised us to do,so that's -- that's what we're doing, what -- thedirection the Elders have gave us.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: If there is no othercomments we'll move on to Deline's presentation.PRESENTATION BY DELINE:MR. PETER MENACHO: Testing. Testing.Mahsi. I'm going to do it in my language. Okay, I justwant to -- I'm just going to make a few comments.(INTERPRETED FROM NORTH SLAVEY INTO ENGLISH)MR. PETER MENACHO: After a shortpresentation we got our legal advisor here with us, TomNesbitt, which is going -- going to do a presentation onour behalf for Deline.In regards to the Sahtu Land Use Plan,we've been having this discussions and meetings for quitea long time. But for the time being, we're now -- since2002 and 2005 Deline has already come up with a plan for

Page 19212345678910111213141516171819202122232425Deline, which was presented to the Sahtu Land UsePlanning Board. And INAC is familiar with it, CPAWS andPAS, and so -- so they -- they have a really good ideawhat -- what Deline has put together.And what we put together in front of allof those government agencies is this Great Bear LakeWatershed Management Plan. And we spend I don't know howmany years on it, but we - we did spend a few years,maybe five (5) years on it. I'm not sure. A lot ofmoney, funds, has been expended on it.So it's very important what happens to ourland in our district because it's up to us to make thosedecisions for the future of -- of our district. Andright now because of the system and the policies that arein place as a community we don't seem to have any say.It's the governments that -- that make decisions ahead ofus. By rights it's the community that -- that's supposedto be in control of the resources and the lands that arearound them, and what they say should be strong.We know that there's governmentrepresentatives here from GNWT and Canada. This SahtuLand Use Plan, it should have been completed a long timeago and we're still -- we still talking about it. Maybe-- they're saying that maybe another two (2) years itwill be finalized. In Deline, we're -- we're still

Page 19312345678910111213141516171819202122232425waiting and it's -- it's frustrating.We've -- we've completed our Land Use Plan2005, and we're still waiting. Six (6) years now andwe're still waiting. It's just sitting there dormantdoing nothing, not going anywhere.Because there's a lot of good work thatwas put into this Land Use Plan on the Deline behalf.There's a lot of Elders that worked on this plan with usand a lot of them are not here with us. They told usstories, traditional knowledge stories of places --(AUDIO STOPS).(INTERPRETATION CONCLUDED)MR. RAYMOND TANITON: My name is RaymondTaniton from Deline First Nation, I was the formernegotiator of the Sahtu Dene Metis claim. Anyways, I wasjust thinking at the table here, with the majoritygovernment yesterday, it looked like a parliament inhere, the way it's set up.Anyways, as a former negotiator, and allthe people that negotiated the claims, we've done a lotof work and we're not going to get a hundred percent ofthe deal. When we signed the claims on September 6th of1993 in Tulita, oh my God I thought it was all over. I

Page 19412345678910111213141516171819202122232425didn't knew that the -- all the work has got to kick in.And that's the frustrating part, but we have to work withit.So like the Chief of Good Hope said,regarding the (INDISCERNIBLE) clause under the finalagreement is, I remember that we exchanged the rights to-- to most of the lands in exchange for some rights andsome lands. To build on top of those issues we set up aregime called the Sahtu Land Use Planning -- Land andWater Board.We had to build on top of that. We had tobuild it up to make sure it moves forward. That's why wehave community consultation and there's rules. LikePeter said there's Section 35 of the Constitutionregarding Aboriginal issues. Also within the Sahtu DeneMetis Claim Agreement.So we have to -- the First Nation peoplein Sahtu can't move forward by themself. The governmentcan't move forward by themself. So we have to moveforward together. If it wasn't for the Elders we won'tbe here, with their stories and their culture and theiruse of the land and the history. And they're providingall this information to make sure we all work together onthese issues together.Like some of the Elders keep saying is

Page 19512345678910111213141516171819202122232425that why are we confessing a lot of things to the people.But again, this is some -- one tool that we need to moveforward together. Like I said, this is like fourteen(14)/fifteen (15) years, we're still talking about it.But the good thing about it is we learn from ourmistakes. It's not going to be a hundred percent perfectplan but it could also be reviewed within five (5) yearstime.So one (1) good thing that -- in Delinewe're really happy about is the watershed that was putinto the Plan because when we were negotiating the claimsback in '90/'92, or negotiating the water in Edmonton,one (1) great chief told me, he said -- George Corteney(phonetic) said, I want you to protect my freezer. And Ididn't know what he meant at that time, and I thoughtabout it. My freezer is Great Bear Lake. I want youguys to protect that.When you think of all the freshwater withall the fish in there, it's not only for us. Both ourgovernments, non-beneficiaries, help us, work together,and let's try to save that.We've been struggling. We've beenspending a lot of money, time with the Elders, with thecommunities, to come up with a sort of a management planwhere finally I'm happy with the Plan. So that's part of

Page 19612345678910111213141516171819202122232425the thing that we've dealt with.We'll always have our differences betweenthe First Nation and the Government of Canada, willalways be there. But we're learning from one another, wehave to work together. And, at the end, there's -- whopays for all this? And those issues that they discusslater at the end of the day with the working group. Sowe need to move together, and we have -- we put our two(2) cents into all this already with all the communities,with the mining companies, and oil and gas companies.Any parties not involved in development has to follow thePlan, which is good. But right now it's just like openseasons and, but again, let's work together on it.We're not going to chase one (1)beneficiary out -- you're not going to chase us out.We're all going to die here. So we have to livetogether, shake hands, but again, our rights aredifferent. Nobody's going to change the colour of myface. Nobody's going to change, like, the way I am.This is who I am. This is my land. This is who we are.So, with that, like I said, there's --there's one (1) piece of the puzzle where they fill in.I know it's a -- it's been a long day, but again, onceyou do it, you walk away and see the implementation ofit. I think people is going to be happy.

Page 19712345678910111213141516171819202122232425We're not saying no to development. We'renot saying we're going to protect the whole area, but wehave to balance development and protection. Because Isaw a program a couple of days ago. In Quebec they're --that they had -- they're making so much money ondevelopment, even -- they said they lost their culture.There's internal fighting. There's people making a lotof money. They're fighting each other. Everybody knowsthat. But again, we learn from it, so let's try to worktogether and move forward together.So the -- the way the pictures and themaps are looking at right now, it's, you know, like Isaid, it's still the end of the day, you can change it infive (5) years time.So, with that, I'm very happy with whatthe Land Use Planning Board are doing now, and you haveany questions, if you need help, this leadership has tohelp. We always have to help each other.So I'm not going to carry this until sixo'clock, so I'll just pass on this to the Chief or Tom,'cause we -- we -- we did our presentation here. I thinkit should be all in your binders there. So that's ourpresentation. We just want to make it brief, and this ismy -- my thinking of what we do next.So, with that, mahsi. And I'm glad I was

Page 19812345678910111213141516171819202122232425part of this whole Dene Metis claim negotiation. I missall the Elders that were here. A lot of good leaders. Alot of good Elders. A lot of them -- we lost a lot ofthem, but we have to pass our knowledge on to our newgenerations. The new generations will pass on to thenext generations. So, with that, mahsi. Thank you.(INTERPRETED FROM NORTH SLAVEY INTO ENGLISH)CHIEF RAYMOND TUTCHO: Raymond Tutcho,Deline First Nation. I'd like to thank the Sahtu LandUse Planning Board for putting up this hearing, and allthe delegates and the people at the community, the Townof Normal Wells. I'd like to thank them for putting upthis meeting. And the government representatives fromthe GNWT and the Indian Affairs, thank you for being inattendance.The meeting that we're having here today,the purpose of the meeting is for the future generations.We're not gonna find the -- the answer for everything.All we want to do is to make sure that everything worksproperly in the future. We know for a fact that inDeline we -- we think that the Sahtu Land Use Plan is aworkable thing, but there's some things -- when we wereyoung, when we were negotiating land claims, and we were

Page 19912345678910111213141516171819202122232425working on the Sahtu Land Use Plan we wanted to make surethat -- that it's gonna work, especially with developers.It's like Raymond Taniton was saying we -- we want tomove forward, but we need to look at it -- look at thePlan.Myself, he says, after we -- we put apackage -- a plan together, once we're finished I wannago back and observe how it's gonna go ahead, because it's-- it's something that I want to do for my people.I'm very thankful for those who -- who putlots of work into the Sahtu Land Use Plan. And what weput together in this Plan is -- it's not only for us,it's for the future generations; how they gonna use theland, and how they gonna respect the wildlife. It's soimportant.We know some people want to make income,make living with income from developers, but money isgonna -- not gonna be there forever. Money willdisappear one day. So it's so important how we surviveon this land that in the future we might be facing hardtimes.Talking about the water. In Deline welive by a really large lake. If you look at Delinehistory, over half of it -- the Great Bear Lake coversjust about all of that -- all of the district, maybe more

Page 20012345678910111213141516171819202122232425than half. Just recently we were in Ed -- Edmonton,there was a presentation made by some person; in thefuture there might be a war and if this war happens inthe future it will be because of the water. You have toreally think about that and be concerned about it.I didn't mean -- I don't mean to talk this-- this long, but we want to make sure that we understandclearly that the future is -- is well intended. And --and how the -- the progression of the Land ClaimsAgreement too we're going to be concerned; how is itgonna go forward?And then we have to worry aboutdevelopers; they -- they will be concerned. Why did youmake this law regarding -- in regards to developers?So maybe even though the Sahtu Land UsePlan becomes -- becomes official, we always look at thefive (5) years later, where we can change some of thethings that maybe they disagree with, and this is wherethe governments of Canada and GNWT would have to supportus in this -- in this way.Us, too, we - we want to finish thisprocess. Sometimes maybe we're rushing. Maybe not onlyus, but the governments too; they want to rush on some ofthe changes that they -- they want to propose.So funding is a -- is a real important

Page 20112345678910111213141516171819202122232425issue too. If -- if the government wants things to work,then, you now, we need the resources. We need thefunding to -- in order to -- to make sure that we do the-- the work properly.So once we fix whatever is outstanding andthen we -- if we can resolve that then we would be verygrateful, because we have -- our Elders are disappearingfast. And whoever Elders we have left here, if we cancomplete the Sahtu Land Use Plan then we would be veryhappy in front a lot of these Elders that are still withus who started to work with us from the beginning. Sothank you very much for listening.(INTERPRETATION CONCLUDED)MR. TOM NESBITT: Hi, I'm -- I'm TomNesbitt and I work for the Land Corp. You -- you shouldhave copies of our presentation in your backgroundreport, so if you'd like, you can follow along.I basically see my role today -- sometimeswe're -- we're prevented from making progress becausethere are technical obstacles in our way. I see my roletoday as trying to remove or help free up some of thosetechnical obstacles we have first and, secondly, to helpget a little perspective on -- on what we're trying to

Page 20212345678910111213141516171819202122232425accomplish here collectively.So I'm going to make some generalcomments. I'm going to talk about some of this so calledconformity requirements and then make a few suggestionson some principles to follow in the next few days.The first thing I want to say is about the-- the need we have -- all of us here today -- to findsome common principles and a common purpose. No -- noagreement will -- will last without those two (2)foundations.But the common purpose is already given tous in the Sahtu Land Claim Agreement. It is, as beenmentioned at -- at the very first by the Board, it is toprotect and promote the existing and future well-being ofthe residents and communities of the Sahtu settlementarea having regard to the interests of all Canadians.We should let this concept of well-beingsink in. It's a very deep concept. So our job heretoday is to make sure that the well-being of thecommunities is protected in the future, and that's thejob of the Land Use Planning Board.We want -- we want in this present -- inthis, you know, deliberations the next few days to askyou to please keep that well-being purpose in mind, anddo not let it become separated from the legally

Page 20312345678910111213141516171819202122232425enforceable provisions of the Plan. It should not bestuck on the shelf and forgotten. We should keep wellbeingfirst and foremost in our minds.In the -- as -- as Raymond and -- andPeter have -- have -- have already introduced, in theSahtu Land Claim Agreement, they -- you beneficiarieshave given up your rights to vast territories in exchangefor rights to harvest, rights to participate in decisionmakingand rights to land.I just want to talk about the -- the lastone a wee bit. This right to participate in thedecision-making is happening right here, right now;that's the Sahtu Land Use Plan.The right to land, all of the -- the --the land corporations now hold title to land. But it's avery unusual kind of land, very unusual kind of title,because your lands - your private lands, the Sahtu lands- are, in fact, managed in large measure - not entirely,but in large measure - by Sahtu Land Use Planning Board,Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board andthe Sahtu Land and Water Board.This underlines the very important purposewhich I began with; that to ensure the well-being of yourcommunities, because your lands are, in fact, beingmanaged in accordance with the Sahtu Land -- Land Use

Page 20412345678910111213141516171819202122232425Plan.Next thing I want to talk about isreconciliation. People have used that word alreadytoday. The Supreme Court of Canada has, in fact, told usthat -- on many occasions -- that the -- the purpose oftreaties -- the purpose of treaties is to reconcile theinterests of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.That's what we're trying to do here now.That's what the Land Use Plan is about. That's what wedid in Deline with the Great Bear Lake Management Planfor three (3) years, with the participation of bothlevels of Government, the Sahtu Land Use Planning Boardand MVEIRB.So what we're looking here today -- again,let this concept sink in a bit. In the Land Use Planwe're looking for reconciling language; language acrossSlavey speakers and English speakers. And generally they-- they call this the one (1) law, one (1) law which isgood for the people of -- the beneficiaries of this landclaim agreement, the Government of Northwest Territories,and the federal government. So we're looking for a wayof speaking and living together, primarily here in thisLand Use Plan.What should we aim for here? And by theway on that one (1), generally -- and I think what other

Page 20512345678910111213141516171819202122232425communities are trying to accomplish here is -- is a wayof reconciling the traditional law of -- in the case ofDeline, the Shuhtagot'ine and the larger system of lawwhich runs in Canada as a whole. We're looking for thatreconciliation of two (2) systems of law, and we believewe can do that. We believe we have done that in theGreat Bear Lake water management plan.What should we aim for here? Oursuggestion at Deline is we look for a practical, learnfrom implementation type plan. We should not seekperfection here; that will take us until the cows comehome or until the caribou come home, I guess.We should not speculate, this -- thiswon't work, this will work. Let's finalize the Plan,approve the Plan, and learn from real experience while inspeculation of what will and will not work.We -- we're looking for a plan which canbe approved, monitored, learned from and amended in five(5) years.Next thing I want to talk about is what'scalled the polluter pays principle. This is basically aprinciple in many systems of law where the -- the onus orthe -- the need to demonstrate that they can do things inaccordance with the Land Use Plan rests on the applicantfor a permit, not on the regulators, and not on us

Page 20612345678910111213141516171819202122232425putting together this Sahtu Land Use Plan. It's for eachapplicant to -- to adapt its particular project to thestandards set out in the Sahtu Land Use Plan. I'll comeback to this; I think it has important implications.I want to talk now about the -- the scopeof the Sahtu Land Use Plan and a subject introduced bySSI early this morning by Ethel and John Donihee.SSI has in -- in my opinion recommended arelatively narrow interpretation of the legislation forgood practical reasons. Deline has questions with thisbut it's -- it's interested in -- in this approach andthinks it needs more discussion.What we would like to suggest -- so -- sobasically in the table that Ethel passed over and thatJohn Donihee put together for us, thankfully, there is a-- a list of all the different kinds of licences andpermits and authorizations that might need a Land UsePlan and to be conformed with the Plan. And a list ofspecific things would be subject to the Plan.We want to suggest a different approach,what is a wider interpretation of the things subject tothe Plan and the possibility to exclude certainactivities which we could all agree do not need to besubject to the Plan. And that's something that the Boardand the technical people can come back to at a later

Page 20712345678910111213141516171819202122232425date.In terms of the hearing topics, we agreewith the zoning provisions set out by the land useplanning board this morning. There's no need to talkfurther about those. We also agree with the Board'sapproach to exempting uses and to grandfathering. Wellstated as far as we're concerned.Now and again we -- we've heard thesequestions about where there is some maximum percentage oflands which can be put into conservation zones. This isan issue of great concern to Deline but it's somethingwe'd just like to offer a perspective on.Basically, we suggest for yourconsideration that we think about the purpose of land useplanning and the capacities of participants at thepresent time, that we think about participants' childrenparticularly.And we think about the proposedconservation zones as having two (2) goals. One (1),they could be to preserve land in the long term, and,secondly, they could preserve -- be put in place topreserve land in the medium term while the residents inthe communities of the Sahtu settlement area develop thecapacities -- their children develop the capacities thatthey can maximize the benefits that they will derive from

Page 20812345678910111213141516171819202122232425the development of the resources in their lands at thetime in the future when they are ready to develop thoseand have those capacities; when they are thetradespeople, the surveyors, the engineers, thegeologists, the resource economists, the sociologists,the lawyers, the CEOs and the shareholders.We suggest that this Land Use Plan is aperfect vehicle to accomplish that because it must bereviewed every five (5) years. But it's legitimate forcommunities to ask that land be put into conservationzones, either for long-term protection or for mid-termprotection until their children are able to maximizethose benefits.And to -- to demand otherwise appears tous to be both arbitrary and inconsistent with the SahtuLand Claim Agreement and its purpose, the -- it's one (1)purpose of well-being.It's as if somebody was to demand -- lastyear I had to sell my house when it was worth far lessthan it is now, instead of saying, No, we -- these --these resources should be developed when families andcommunities could maximize their benefits from theseresources.I want to talk just briefly about some ofthese conform to your comments. I don't want to get too

Page 20912345678910111213141516171819202122232425technical at this point, but under 9(b) in ourpresentation, I think we need to talk about the languagein which conformity requirements are -- are written.I've heard in some of the presenta -- insome of the written submissions to the Board a requestthat conformity determinations all be very specificallyworded so they can be tested and that there be no -- noneed for interpretation. In our view, that's a -- amistake and a confusion of the role of the Sahtu Land UsePlanning Board on the one (1) hand, and the Land andWater Board on the other hand.We suggest that we be tolerant,particularly in this first edition of the Land Use Plan,of conformity requirements that are written both inspecific terms and in general terms. The general termscould be as clear as are specific terms. They requireinterpretation; that's fine. That's the job of the Landand Water Board.So we should not in this Land Use Plan bedemanding that the Land Use Plan be very specific, veryparticularly worded, than it's for the Land and WaterBoard to take the general and -- and the specificconformity requirements in the Plan and develop terms andconditions which will implement those conformityrequirements.

Page 21012345678910111213141516171819202122232425So the role of the Land Use Planning Boardand the role of Land and Water Board are different,they're both necessary and they're complementary.I'm going to move on to this issue called"timing issues". Again, I think -- I'm just trying tofree up this technical issue here.We recommend in Deline that, as a generalrule, the Sahtu Land Use Plan should simply state theprohibition or condition and leave it up to the regulatorto determine when and how to implement the prohibition orcondition.I don't think we -- I think we should getrid of this "before any land use activity is authorized"type language. It's causing all kinds of questions asregards when this test can be accomplished. We suggestthe obligation to demonstrate, as already said, restswith the proponent.The Land Use Planning -- the Land Use Planshould simply state the standard the applicant must meet,and we should not attempt in the Plan to tell theapplicant exactly how to meet the standard or write hisapplications. It's for the applicant to adapt the Planto the particular circumstances in which it is proposingto operate.It is -- it is appropriate, however, for

Page 21112345678910111213141516171819202122232425us to recommend, not demand but recommend approaches toapplicants and our understanding is that's what thePlanning Board is already trying to do in itsimplementation guide. So they think they're on the righttrack.It's for the regulatory authorities todetermine whether an applicant has met its -- its onus toprove in its application and, importantly, throughout thelife of a permit. The -- the applicant does not getapproval to go without conditions at the outset of thepermit only. The applicant -- through the Land and WaterBoard's work, we -- we have faith in them, and theconditions that the Land and Water Board attaches topermits, it's generally for the Land and Water Board andthe inspectors working for the Land and Water Board toenforce those conditions and ensure that they're beingmet.Next technical issue I want to talk aboutis -- is what SSI calls policy statements or guidelines.We have no problem with their general approach to this,but again, here we suggest that aren't these policystatements and guidelines what the Board is alreadytrying to do in its implementation guide. But again, theone (1) refinement here is that the implementation guideshould constitute recommendations only to applicants.

Page 21212345678910111213141516171819202122232425We should not allow ourselves to bepersuaded that we should be telling applicants how todraft every application; that's their responsibility.And when we try to write things in very, very specificterms we are, in fact, taking -- we are, in fact,bringing that applicant's responsibility putting onourselves through the back door.State the prohibition, leave it to theapplicant to figure it out, leave the Land and WaterBoard to implement it.On CR 2, this is the one about communityengagement and traditional knowledge. We don't want tosay too much about this except this is a very importantrequirement. Again, the onus is on the applicant not theregulators. And the wording seems pretty reasonable tous.Basically, we -- we -- I think the problemhere is, is this wording designed and carried out.Again, we suggest that issue of conformity requirement,there's determination issue confirming determination tolook at the design of the proposed activities. Land UsePlanning Board, look at the design of the proposedactivities.Land and Water Board will attach permit --conditions in the permit and they will ensure that

Page 21312345678910111213141516171819202122232425throughout the life of the permit, through its terms andconditions, and through its inspectors we will carry outand enforce that requirement. So it's not the Land UsePlanning Board doing it itself or the Land and WaterBoard itself, it's working together, hand in hand.In terms of the community benefits thing,we -- we agree that this is something that needs morediscussion. We'd like to hear a little more from SSI interms of its proposals for a public interest test or acommunity support test. Our Elders tell us developmentshould have what they call a fair sharing of benefits ofresource development.So it appears to us that this - this wellbeingpurpose is again relevant here. When we -- when wetalk in the next few days about community benefit weshould be thinking about, yes, there are access andbenefit agreements as a separate part of the land claimagreement, and they are not to take over the role of aLand Use Plan. Those are different things, both providedfor in the Sahtu Land Claim Agreement.But when we think about well-being wethink what does that mean in terms of community benefit.I think if we think in those terms, that's what we'retrying to achieve, community benefit. Then we shouldfocus on how can we accomplish that anyway, and we leave

Page 21412345678910111213141516171819202122232425it to our collective vision to try to figure out somemechanisms to do that in the next few days.The next thing I want to talk about isbelow threshold activities, and a matter of some concernto Deline, and I -- I suspect other communities. Thisword below threshold means that -- a fancy legal word tomean that -- or a policy word to mean that certainactivities on the land on the part of explorers do notrequire a permit. They're -- they're -- they're toosmall activities and, therefore, they do not require anyconformity with the Sahtu Land Use Plan.Deline is concerned about that. Thesecould fall outside the requirements of the Sahtu Land UsePlan yet they could have significant environmental andecological integrity impacts.As far as we know, there is no publiclyaccountable monitoring of these activities so we havepotential environmental impacts of these things whichcould, in a cumulative way, add up to greater impactsthan other developments which are subject to a permit.So Deline would like us to talk about thisin the next few days and see whether we could come upwith a recommendation for mechanisms by which these below-- so-called below threshold activities, which do notcurrently require a land use permit or water licence, be

Page 21512345678910111213141516171819202122232425brought into the -- into the requirements of the Land UsePlan, including potential recommendations that -- thatare called the Mackenzie Valley Land Use Regulations beamended to capture some of these potentially significantenvironmental -- environmental activities.Now I want to talk about the actions thatare -- have been mentioned already today. And to us themain issue here -- these are issues of what I callpolicy, not issues of law.We -- we think that the -- the Land UsePlan has got a -- has assembled a really good collectionof work that needs to be done. Just -- just to refreshyour memories a wee bit, I'm just going to go over someof these.Action 2: Establish a Sahtu workinggroup.Action 3: Develop community engagementguidelines.Action 4: Refine the conformityrequirements.Action 5: Develop a communi -- cumulativeeffect management plan of action, an action to deal withcumulative impacts.Number 6: Develop a Sahtu environmentalmonitoring program, recommendation for a communications

Page 21612345678910111213141516171819202122232425position.Recommendation 7: Increase inspections.Action 8: Partners in patrols,monitoring, inspection, and enforcement, therecommendations on economic development strategy,building capacity, maximizing benefits, and communityparticipation in funding.Action 9: Develop traditional knowledgeguidelines.These are excellent ideas. The questionis how feasible they are, particularly in four (4) years.Deline is concerned about the -- what it believes that isnot feasible to be done within five (5) years; that wejust set priorities within these; that we need to have anabsolute need for full community involvement in the workof the -- of the Sahtu working group.And we're very concerned of thepossibility that once again the communities may be leftout of this equation and left out of resource decisionmaking,which would be fundamentally inconsistent withthe Sahtu Land Claim Agreement.So again, we think the intention isexcellent but, well, with the greatest respect toeverybody, it's an impossible and unrealistic task infour (4) years. It's impossible for the Board, for

Page 21712345678910111213141516171819202122232425government, for the Resources Board, the Land and WaterBoard, and particularly community organizations.It's not as though you're -- you're nothaving other things to do. You're not sitting aroundwith your feet up in the air and twiddling your thumbs.That is not happening now. People are busy already.Therefore, priorities need to be set within thoseexcellent ideas. Let's keep them all in mind; let's keepthem all in -- document them all, but let's setpriorities first. And second, just make a good start atthose priorities in the first five (5) years.This needs further discussion, thismatter. As a point of departure in this, Deline suggestsgiving priority to making a good start on the workinggroup, community engagement guidelines, the cumulativeeffects monitoring, communications, and patrols,monitoring and inspection and enforcement, andtraditional knowledge guidelines.But in any case, we suggest as -- as someconsiderations for your collective consideration in thenext couple of days, you should be asking yourselvesquestions like how is that we're going to do these thingsanyway? What kind of money is going to be needed? Whatkind of people is it going to need on the part ofcommunities and the Board, and the Land and Water Board,

Page 21812345678910111213141516171819202122232425government, both levels of government?You should ask yourselves: How could aworkable Sahtu working group be constituted. Whatorganizations must take part in that? How can we makesure it's a workable thing? Heidi began talking aboutthat earlier today.Some -- some actions appear to us -- theproposed actions appear to us to be obvious priorities,like the working group and community engagementguidelines.Some are quite nicely supportive, and theycan be done together, for example, the -- theenvironmental monitoring program, and the patrolsmonitoring inspection enforcement, and we all know thatcommunities really want to have a hand in these -- inmonitoring what happens in -- in this Land Use Plan.When we're doing the Great Bear LakeMonitoring Plan -- Management Plan, DFO entered into acontract with the Deline Resource Council to beginmonitoring the lake, even before we finalized the Plan,because that was a really important matter for Deline.And -- and you should ask yourselves: Arethere some of these actions which would benefit from moreexperience? In implementing the Land Use Plan we suggestthat the obvious one (1) is their -- is -- is refining

Page 21912345678910111213141516171819202122232425the conformity requirements.Let's refine the recroni -- conformityrequirements when we've got as much experience aspossible. Let's live with what we've got until then.So Deline recommends that communityorganizations need funding for technical support and toparticipate in the working group. We cannot agree thatparticipation should be voluntary and self-funded.The community -- community participationis an integral part of the implementation of the SahtuLand Claim Agreement. It is the cost of doing business.To have -- to allow a working group toproceed without community funding will -- again as I wassuggesting a couple of minutes ago, you could have thescenario where the Land Use Planning Board said thatthey've got salaried employees. Land and Water Board hasgot salaried employees. Governments got salariedemployees. Everybody except the communities is -- istaking part because the communities don't have anysalaried employees in this -- in this field. So absoluterequirement there be community funding for this.In terms of the further implementationissues that the Board asked to talk about, we've alreadytalked about the -- the timing issues above. SSI hasraised an interesting concept about that the Land Use

Page 22012345678910111213141516171819202122232425Planning Board should do the conformity determinations,and we think that's worth discussion.John Donihee has identified some, youknow, some important considerations there, that theremight be inconsistencies at different bodies due to theseconformity requirements; that they need to be done in aconsistent manner, and one (1) Board doing them couldprovide some consistency there.But we know that if the Board does them,if they're all referred to the Board and the Board'sdecisions are final and binding, that's what the lawsays. So you've got to be careful here.Anyways, a practical first step inaccomplishing this, we -- we wonder whether the Land UsePlanning Board might be willing to approach the legallyreferring agencies, or regulators in the legislation tosee whether they'd be willing, in fact, to refer these --these matters to the Board as a general practice in thefirst five (5) years, for example, because if they'rewilling, that's -- as far as -- as my interpretation ofthe law, that's as far as it goes.Finally, I'd just like to suggest a fewpractical principles the next few days. First, keep thepurpose in mind. Keep well-being in mind. Don't let goof it. Again, don't let it get separated from the

Page 22112345678910111213141516171819202122232425legally enforceable provisions of this Plan.Second, the Peter pays principle. Don't -- let us not forget that the -- the onus is on theapplicant for permits to demonstrate that their -- theycan conform to the requirements of the Land Use Plan.The applicant is responsible for itsapplication and its activities. We should not, throughthe backdoor, take on the roles of the applicant in thisLand Use Plan.The Land Use Plan should provide thestandards the applicants to meet, and it's for theapplicant to meet those standards, but we can, as theBoard has already hopefully begun to do, recommendapproaches in the implementation guide.We -- we should also keep this principleof fit within the larger regulatory system in mind, andthink about the complimentary roles of the Land UsePlanning Board, Mackenzie Environmental Impact ReviewBoard, and the Land and Water Board.And again, we should not demand that theLand Use Plan all have Land and Water Board typeconditions in it. That's the job of the Land and WaterBoard, not the land -- Land Use Planning Board.Finally, the final simple principle torecommend to you for your consideration is, Keep it

Page 22212345678910111213141516171819202122232425simple, and let's do a learn from implementation of theSahtu Land Use Plan. Let's finalize it. Let's approveit. Let's implement it. Let's learn from monitoring.And let's make it explicit in the Plan that this is ourapproach so there's no question down the road that, Hey,you're the guys that are going to put these things in thefirst edition of the Plan. Why are you now coming backto put other things in the Plan? If we make it explicitin the Plan, we need not fear that argument.So I'm hoping that if we can considerthese things, then maybe we can see the called -- socalledlight at the end of the tunnel, and move in thenext few days and, if necessary in -- in a technicalworking group to help bring this thing forward, everybodysupport the Land Use Planning Board in finalizing thisplan, and finally giving this part of the -- of the SahtuLand Claim Agreement force, because this is arguably theheart of the Sahtu Land Claim Agreement in terms ofresource management.That still is, as Raymond was saying, notthere. It's like -- it's like an animal with no heart.We want to give the heart to the animal, but let's notworry about some fancy heart that we might -- you know,Cadillac heart. We just want to -- let's get this thinggoing. Thanks very much.

Page 22312345678910111213141516171819202122232425THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So is thereany questions for Deline for their presentation? Heidi,you take -- Board...? Communities...? Lucy has aquestion.(BRIEF PAUSE)QUESTION PERIOD:MS. LUCY JACKSON: Hello. Thank you,Madam Chair. I -- is this Deline's position on -- to theLand Use Planning? Thank you very much.Boy, you touch on some heavy -- heavyissues. Reconciliation, that's an internationalreconciliation on a high political level for -- for theFirst Nations of the country here.We need probably possibly a three (3) tofour (4) interpretations of what you've just addressed.We fall in that category, and we're going to be makingconcessions? We may.The United Nations has a declaration forindigenous nations around the world, and we fall in thatdeclaration.Actually, we should even invite theNational Chief in Ottawa to give us a true picture ofwhat the international reconciliation on that level, on

Page 22412345678910111213141516171819202122232425that high political level, because we fall into thatcategory.Tolerance policy, we fall under a no tol -- I mean, zero tolerance in our community. We can't evenmove. And let's deal with the -- these are internationalcompanies. These are heavy steel workers, and unionpeoples, ruthless. Probably will not follow regulations,in spite of whether we put the best regulatory of thecountry holds our land policies, subsections, three (3)to five (5) subsections, that gives them a real way to goaround the corners.Heavy bridges will occur because that'sall we're used to. From the time they've landed,bridges. I'm just voicing this myself as a woman. Inparticular, if nobody wants to listen, that's okay, butI'm talking to myself and addressing these issues tomyself as a mother.What happens in the event that between nowand the five (5) years, or between when it's settled,when all these mega development is happening on ourlands, and the younger generation perhaps will think ofboycotting because that's what's happening across theworld.What's going to happen to them, becausethe regulatory process is going to put them right there,

Page 22512345678910111213141516171819202122232425even if it's just to ask for jobs. Simple things likethat.Salaried employees, co-management board,with our peoples in there hasn't worked for us to date,so we need to address -- you know, some of us haven'teven -- I mean, just last week I was at a meeting in GoodHope, and I learned so many things. And we're in thepast what, fifteen (15) years. Let's get with it,peoples. Let's get with it. If we want to refine it,that's okay, but I say heavy bridges will really do usin.I want to address some issues tomorrow,too, because right now I'm just not -- my insides isjust... obstacles. We try. We try under the Claims.Consultation. This has -- that has a legal bearing? Idon't think so. Monitors. Does it -- does it have alegal bearing?Reconcile on this level. We haven't eventalked about the protection of our womens (sic), and ourchildrens (sic), and our mens, and our community. We'vejust heard a leader saying this -- this afternoon, jobsare available today, but our peoples are not getting thejobs.Another issue is we've never talked aboutthe human rights issues, and that's where we fall heavily

Page 22612345678910111213141516171819202122232425into peoples. Like, I want to address some issues welltomorrow, because it's the well-being of our peoples andour community. I'm not talking for all the communities inthe Sahtu because we come from an individual -- ashowboat in a community. We fall right on the right-ofwayon land, and on the Mackenzie. It's right -- we'reright here. The doorstep is going to be right here.And I want to address this -- some issuestomorrow, but right now is like I say, my insides is justreally... I hope some of you understand where I'm comingat from, you know, because I think of the childrens(sic), and we even -- we haven't even talked about theadoptions of our -- that our peoples have lived throughin the past. Of childrens (sic), and of mens, and ofwomens, because it's always quietly talked about behinddoors from Elders.We have to make sure those -- our peoplesare well. The well-being of them is that they don't haveto be caught under that, and perhaps imported.Residential school system was just nothing but adeportation. Whole families split up, and we're talkingabout an international reconciliation. We have toaddress some serious issues here, peoples.Like I have no -- I -- I resist for areason. I want to make sure our non-renewable resources

Page 22712345678910111213141516171819202122232425is going to keep our peoples alive until time inmemorial. Is that what the treaty meant?A healthy living covenant, not just for afew peoples, but for everybody right across the -- rightacross our community.But I would like to talk some -- some moretomorrow, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I just -- Ihad to get rid of this right now because it's too -- Ihave to go to sleep tonight, too. Anyway, mahsi. Mahsi.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there any otherexpressing comments right now? Stressing comments?Otherwise, we'll -- go ahead, Tom.MR. TOM NESBITT: I just want to thankLucy for saying what she said. What we're -- what we'retrying to do in our presentation here is to make -- whatI was trying to do there was to make clear what is thelaw now.Well-being is the purpose of Land UsePlanning as recognized in your treaty with the Crown, andit's our job to give that well-being life, and reality.You're right, it's a big issue, but that'sour job. And that is -- furthermore reconciliation is

Page 22812345678910111213141516171819202122232425what the Supreme Court of Canada has told us on manyoccasions is the fundamental objection of the modern daylaw of treaty and Aboriginal rights, including land claimagreements.So again, we're within the law and we'retrying to do that here. We're only trying to do it forland, and uses of land, uses related to the use of land,so we can't attach -- attach it -- attack everything.But that's what Deline is trying to urge,that people keep the Land Claim Agreement first andforemost. That we all do this together. That we notforget that purpose. That we not forget the ultimateobjective, reconciliation.We want to do that in the Sahtu Land UsePlan. It is a negotiated part of the -- of thisconstitutionally recognized treaty, and we want to giveit life. Thank you.(BRIEF PAUSE)THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So we'llreconvene tomorrow morning at 8:30, and have the two (2)other signatory parties do their presentations, which isINAC and GNWT.And Lucy -- if Lucy wants to finish her

Page 22912345678910111213141516171819202122232425presentation tomorrow -- oh, at nine o'clock. You get anextra half an hour. You can leave your -- your materialhere. Okay.--- Upon adjourning at 5:45 p.m.Certified Correct____________Sean Coleman