Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move a motion that Bill 7 is amended by adding the following after section 1:
1.1
(1) For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
(2) An action or thing authorized by this act must be carried out in accordance with any applicable land claims agreement.
(3) If there is a conflict or an inconsistency between a provision of this act or the regulations a provision of a land claims agreement or legislation approving, giving effect to and declaring valid a land claims agreement, the provision of the land claims agreement or legislation prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. A motion is on the floor. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Krutko, as mover of the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated earlier, the majority of positions I meant, but I think if you take a close look at exactly where you look at the Indian branch lands and the management of those Indian branch lands by bands in our communities. Also in regard to the municipal lands in our communities, there are special arrangements.
I find it kind of odd from the Minister and the deputy stating that they don’t have anything to do with it because it’s a federal land claim agreement. Those municipal lands that were selected through the land claim agreement are in our communities. There are special circumstances that you have to consider in regard to lands in communities, regardless, for public purposes. It’s spelled out in the land claims agreements. It also talks about the area of real property taxes and exemptions of certain property taxes by way of those land claim agreements.
I think also realizing that in any changes to the municipal boundaries, there’s a process that this government has to go through with the land claims organizations communities by way of a special process for expropriation. You have to follow that process. It’s in the constitutional land claim agreement. There’s a process to expropriate lands for public purposes.
The same thing with regard to the land claims agreements where a lot of the IAB lands that exist today, I find it kind of odd that someone mentioned that there was no IAB land swap. The whole idea of land claims is to eventually eliminate IAB for land claims settlement regions and transfer to the Aboriginal governments by swapping out those IAB lands in communities and bringing them under the umbrella land claim agreements. There are certain provisions for taxation, 15-year tax holiday where the federal government will pay those taxes.
Also, like I mentioned, like Mr. Beaulieu mentioned earlier, a lot of these lands that the Housing Corporation built houses on in communities on IAB lands, those lands had to be swapped for other lands in exchange that we release that IAB land under the Housing Corporation units or you told the Housing Corporation to move those houses off those lands. That was the situation in Aklavik, where Aklavik at one time was designated a reserve status. They had a large block land transfer in Aklavik to set up a reserve back in 1958 and that reserve still exists today, and it probably still exists in other communities in the Northwest Territories.
I think it’s imperative that you don’t lose sight of the obligations that we have. By spelling this out in this legislation and having similar clauses that we have in other legislation that were passed through this House in regard to abrogation and derogation, it clearly identifies to the parties that are going to basically implement this legislation that that has to be taken into consideration when you develop such legislation as Community Planning and Development Act so that when you’re doing your planning, when you’re doing your development you realize and contemplate that those activities have to be considered and have to be looked at before any planning can be concluded or also implemented by way of the development act.
With that, I again strongly encourage other Members to support the motion. I think it is needed in the confines of this type of legislation where there is a definite conflict between the municipal governments and the band communities in those communities where those lands, regardless of who’s doing the planning or who’s doing the development, you have to take into consideration these unique situations of lands.
Like I mentioned in regard to the IAB status, that is similar to almost the same status as the reserves in southern Canada. That’s why you have to get a band council resolution every time you try and do something with Indian branch lands from the Housing Corporation to municipal government, or even to a band government where you have to pass a band council resolution. You have to get the legal authority to do any developments on those properties, and I think that you can’t lose sight of that in the confines of this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion, Mr. Ramsay.
I must say I applaud the tenacity of my colleague from the Mackenzie Delta on this issue. I will support his amendment that he’s bringing forward today.
I remember back to the committee meeting and I know the government is going forward with a way to be more consistent in this area with the Interpretation Act that’s going to come into play during the life of the 17th Assembly. I think we have to be consistent. We’ve dealt with other pieces of legislation that have this clause in it. I see nothing wrong with adding this amendment. I always say, better safe than sorry.
I’m going to support my colleague from the Mackenzie Delta in this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion, Mr. Bromley.
I find myself agreeing with the Minister that there should be no reason to include this clause in this piece of legislation. The land claims legislation, the settlement legislation has these clauses in it, and it’s clear that that is the law and we know that it takes precedence over all other legislation. Unfortunately, although the Minister has suggested, I believe, that we put this in the Interpretation Act and therefore there would be even greater clarity if it was needed, the government has been totally inconsistent in applying this clause in their legislation. So we find it lacking and proposed to be lacking in this legislation at the same time that they’re bringing forward legislation before this House right now where the clause is included. This sort of inconsistency makes me realize that the greater certainty is not there, because they have not shown that it’s a certain thing by including it in some and others not in legislation before this House today.
I think a big part of it is Mr. Krutko’s point as sponsor of this motion, that people who are actually fulfilling this legislation will not be aware of this background legislation that does take precedence in every case, and that’s the certainty we’re looking for here. I think the government has had a responsibility and has failed in bringing a broad understanding by both the bureaucracy and the public, and to some extent the Aboriginal governments. I make the same complaint in bringing the same degree of understanding to their constituents, their beneficiaries about this legislation.
Certainly the general public was never included in either the land claims negotiations or its implementation and they are finding out about this piecemeal. As a result, there’s a lot of unnecessary strife because they simply are not aware.
This, of course, highlights the need for courses both for the beneficiaries, obviously by Aboriginal governments, but certainly for the public and civil service by this government. There have been I know the odd ones here and there, but we need a comprehensive and consistent program there to ensure that our employees are aware of this legislation as they fulfill their duties.
I do agree with the Minister there should be no need for this clause. I think putting it into the Interpretation Act would be a good solution, once these concerns have been taken care of.
So given the inconsistency gaps and deficiencies I’ve noted, I support this motion while suggesting the government begin raising awareness of land claims law, followed by putting this clause into the Interpretation Act, as has been suggested, and removing it from its seemingly random use in legislation, again aiming for that consistency that is required. I will be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion, Mr. Menicoche.
I believe that, like my colleagues have previously indicated, there are other pieces of legislation that do have this clause and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be in here. I could be corrected, but I don’t think the Minister disagreed either. He’s just saying wait until later. Unfortunately, we’re late into our government and any guarantees for the 17th Assembly is not guaranteed either, because priorities change, et cetera. For myself, as well, overarching legislation to have this clause to affect all the other clauses can be done, and I certainly look forward to that. However, I believe that the point of power is in the moment and we do have an opportunity to include this, so I certainly support the concept and I will be voting in favour.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion, Mr. Beaulieu.
I, too, will be supporting this motion. I think that if it gives comfort to the individual land claims negotiations people that are concerned that sometimes we would pass an act in the House here that could adversely affect their ability to complete negotiations, then that’s something that we want.
This is something that provides clarity and, as it says in Clause 3, if there’s a conflict, then this is a good way to resolve the conflict, and it’s also consistent with some of the other acts where we’ve included this clause. I will be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion, Ms. Bisaro.
My comments are very similar to those that my colleagues have already expressed. I, too, believe that this clause is probably not necessary, but until we have the proposed amendment to the Interpretation Act passed through this House so that we have a clause which is consistent and which covers all of our legislation, I feel that it is only fair that we include it in this particular act as a whole.
I am struck by the response of the Minister and Cabinet relative to this particular suggestion that they have denied including these clauses in this act but have seen fit to include it in the Wildlife Act which is before the House. That doesn’t make sense to me. I do support having a blanket application of this clause in the Interpretation Act and I think at the time that that amendment to the Interpretation Act takes place, that we should also make amendments to every act that we have and remove it from all the acts that we do have, so, as is pointed out by the Minister, we have a consistent application of the intent of these clauses. I think it specifically needs to be here, as well, because community governments will use this act in their community planning and development.
There’s a sad lack of education of the NWT residents on the impact that land claims negotiations has. Many of our community government staff and/or councillors may not be fully aware of the implications of a land claims agreement. The fact that this clause is in the act, if they are looking at the act for specific information relative to community planning and development, they will then be...it will be highlighted for them that they need to also look at land claims agreements to make sure that they’re not contravening something which has already been established in a land claims agreement. Until the Interpretation Act is amended and we have these clauses in the Interpretation Act so that it applies to all of our legislation across the GNWT, I support adding it to this particular bill.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, Mr. Yakeleya.
The amendments that Mr. Krutko brought forward seem to be in order. It seems to, for myself, give some clarity to the Community Planning and Development Act; some certainty.
Without question, when this act comes into force, the community planners not only in municipalities but Aboriginal governments are clear on where they stand. The interpretation of this amendment for myself, I’m of the opinion of the comments by Mr. Menicoche is the 17th I’m not too sure if there’s going to be or how the interpretation issue will be handled with this specific wording. Today we have the ability and power to make these changes today and not leave it up to fate in the 17th. So that’s my comments, Mr. Chair, and I will be supporting the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next on my list, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on this motion, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we’ve said on a number of occasions that nothing we can do could take away from the established land claims authorities that are there that are constitutionally protected in this country. We’ve said that and have that in some of our legislation, as pointed out. Those pieces of legislation that are included are, in fact, ones that are much larger, that effect direct impact on some of the co-management areas. The Member has raised the Wildlife Act, for example, because it directly involves a relationship with the land claims groups and Aboriginal governments. We need to be very clear on that.
There were a couple of points, just for the record, because there were a couple of points that were raised that need to be clarified for the record, so we don’t have this as down in history of that point being specific.
For example, Indian Affairs branch land, I believe it’s called, or IAB. When the transfers occur from the federal government, they don’t come and tell us and consult with us and negotiate with us. They transfer. They have an Order-in-Council and they transfer and we end up picking up some of those pieces, whether it’s the Housing Corp or other areas in the community. The times we get involved are when we work with the bands to possibly look at land exchanges within community boundaries. So for that, I know the Minister said he would get additional information on that, but just so we get it on record.
The other piece is land claim selection. Now, when land claims were negotiated and land selected within communities, those were treated in the sense that when an Aboriginal group -- and we have examples of those -- selected within community boundaries, the lands they selected were treated as any property owner in a community. Dollars were exchanged for that property and treated fee simple, I guess is the word to use, which then in community planning and development, the community would have to approach the land owners in the community about certain developments. So there is the right and the role of a land owner in a community to deal with the community development that is being proposed or asked about. That community council/government, would have to take that into consideration.
So I wanted, for the record, to point that out. Yes, there are land selections, but when they made land selections in the community, there was an exchange of value as the claim was settled and the federal government exchanged cash for property that was provided to the Aboriginal group as part of their selection. But then that property in the community became, as a taxpaying community, part of fee simple ownership and their right to go to a community council/government and say we disagree with certain developments in this area. So that exists. I think that is why the approach was initially by the department to say it applies. Those rights are already established as fee simple title holders in our communities.
On top of that, overall as a government we clearly state that nothing we can do as the Government of the Northwest Territories can take away from. The other side is we have to be cautious to ensure that at the same time we are not, through an act of the Legislative Assembly, giving more powers or more authority than was negotiated in the land claims. So we have to be careful on that side of it too. That is why there was some caution raised at the stage as it was.
We hear, and I’ve heard from Members, about the inconsistencies, and I think that goes from the fact that some of our earlier pieces of legislation that were put in place when we first signed some of these agreements was we found examples of where there were inconsistencies of application. Quite clearly now, we’ve gone through this a number of times and as more claims are settled, we are updating our claims or legislation to recognize the rights that are established and constitutionally protected.
So I just wanted, for the record, Mr. Chairman, to put that forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. Again, I’d like to state that it’s not only what’s in the land claim agreements. I know I spoke about IAB lands and treaty rights. I think that these conflicts can exist simply by going ahead without getting a band council motion. People have tried that in the past, and they’ve basically learned the hard way and they’ve ended up in court. I think that’s what we’re trying to avoid here, that we avoid a long, drawn out process, and take the time to consider those other legal binding obligations we have, whether it’s through treaty entitled lands, land claim agreements or even developments adjacent to municipalities that may have...(inaudible)...through resource development or a simple thing like expanding a municipal boundary outwards on different types of land.
That is something we have to be conscious of. We do have to ensure that whatever legislation we put forward, you have the provisions up front so people realize that that is imperative to any legislation we pass in this Legislative Assembly.
With that, I’d like to request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion.
Question.
