Thank you, Mr. Speaker. WHEREAS the Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act, to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other acts and certain orders and regulations to parliament;
AND WHEREAS Bill C-15 will eliminate the regional land and water boards to form a single Yellowknife-based land and water board with only one representative from each region;
AND WHEREAS our Aboriginal government partners and many NWT residents oppose this amalgamation;
AND WHEREAS the intent of land claim settlements in the settled regions was to establish and maintain regional land and water boards as they currently exist, so that decisions were made by people most familiar with regional issues;
AND WHEREAS the regional land and water boards have excellent track records and evaluations that demonstrate they are effective and efficient at responding to and administering land and water board applications;
AND WHEREAS the amalgamation of regional land and water boards does not address the core process issues of unsettled land claims, delayed ministerial decisions, and federal failures to confirm nominees or designate nominees to the boards and other findings of the 2005 and 2010 NWT Environmental Audits;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories will achieve substantial new delegated and actual authorities to manage land and water in the Northwest Territories on territorial lands effective April 1, 2014;
AND WHEREAS a guiding principle of the draft NWT Land Use and Sustainability Framework is that “communities and regions have the opportunity for meaningful engagement and input into land-use decisions;”
AND WHEREAS staffed regional offices would help maintain regional capacity and enable the accustomed regional input into the land, water and resource management, monitoring and enforcement process;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that the Government of the Northwest Territories to work with our regional Aboriginal government partners to determine the desirability and feasibility of establishing and staffing regional offices as a basis for ensuring meaningful input into land and water management structures;
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories work with the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to seek support and resources towards this initiative;
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories make a public commitment to work with future federal governments to delay the elimination of or reinstitute the regional land and water boards;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Government of the Northwest Territories report to the House on the results of such collaborative discussions with our Aboriginal partners, and provide the results of feasibility studies to implement actions resulting from this process within 120 days
Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start by noting that, of course, this motion is in response to the crystal clear and unanimous voices of our Aboriginal partners, who between them constitute the greater part of the residents in the Northwest Territories. It’s in response to the many residents who have similarly spoken clearly through groups like Alternatives North, the unions and Ecology North and as individual citizens. It is in response to the Chamber of Mines who have nervously, though perhaps belatedly, acknowledged that the regional boards are indeed working well.
We could put forward a motion simply objecting to the closure of the regional boards, and of course we would be ignored. This has happened at the federal level. But we have a situation where we need to try and do something to make the best of a bad situation, keeping the regional capacity in places that allow the boards to keep a finger on the pulse of each region and allow for direct engagement with people in each region.
But really this motion, rather than be overly specific here, urges Cabinet to sit down with our Aboriginal partners and discuss with them what mitigation can be taken, what specific actions can be put in place and structures to address the gap that this will be leaving.
I guess the Cabinet might say that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board will remain largely unchanged. Well, that’s a given and that’s the whole point here. In fact, the point is that all of the regional boards will disappear and the structure that already exists for the rest of the unsettled areas will remain, clearly a major change to what’s happening.
Cabinet might say that the Mackenzie Valley board will include at least one member appointed from an Aboriginal government, but the problem is for a regional project it doesn’t have to be the representative from that region. Representation similar in proportion, but the problem is again that the people doing the representing will not be as familiar. How can a large board be familiar with one region as to the same degree as it might be with the regional boards? That, of course, was the whole intent of these structures, was to provide that regional focus and the power, which I believe this government professes to, in the hands of the people to control the pace and scale of development within their own area.
The Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board is a similar institution. It functions without regional clans. There are considerable concerns about not having regional nominations confirmed by the Minister, which is currently the case over and over again. In fact, that’s happening as we speak, and the basic fact is that a representative from the region will be more knowledgeable and better at representing the best interests of the public when they are based in the region. That holds for the boards as well.
The Cabinet might say, well, who supports this? I think I’ve already covered that and it was clear, if you were at the hearings on this subject, that many boards, many groups, many citizens and even the Chamber of Mines were speaking out in ways that showed there was little support for this.
Cabinet might claim that these regional land boards were not meant to be there in perpetuity. Well, that may be, but they were meant to be there for a good while and to, again, enable the ability of the local and regional people to control the pace and scale of development in their regions. That’s what they did and they did it very well. With the number of evaluations that were done, clearly they were doing it very well.
Again, Cabinet might say the chair can appoint people to small panels of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board to bring a regional emphasis, well, they can indeed, but this is not required and therein is the rub, because the federal government provides policy direction to the structure of this new super-board. Cabinet might question the efficiency and effectiveness, but again, studies have been clear on that. They might say that there’s no reason to believe that a single larger board would not be as effective and efficient as a series of smaller boards, but I submit that this is highly debatable. Many think the new approach, in fact, will lead to an adversarial approach, lack of confidence, delayed processes because they’re not based in the regions, and I think that’s where the nervousness of our…(inaudible)…mines is coming from and the reason why they’re sort of shaking in their boots. Again, a highly debatable point that we need to raise.
Again, I know that Cabinet, at our urging, has raised a number of issues in the past that were highlighted in the environmental audits. Unfortunately, they’ve raised those ineffectively. Even after these amendments to the MVRMA those issues largely still remain.
The Surface Rights Board Act that is being put in place through these amendments, of course, comme ci, comme ca. I mean, there have been no issues, almost zero issues in the settled land claims on surface rights issues. All of them have to do in the unsettled land claim areas and where is the settlement on those claims? That’s what we need, not these sorts of things that take power away from the people.
Cabinet might say the creation of a single board is not intended to deal with every issue that exists but to focus on the efficiency of board operations already. I’ve already addressed this, so we’ll move on.
Again, the reference to the Land Use and Sustainability Framework that communities and regions have the opportunity for meaningful engagement and input into the land use decision, a draft policy of this Cabinet, this motion is totally in line with that. So I don’t think there’s any question to be raised there.
The opportunity for meaningful engagement, again, will be reduced. As a result of this, Cabinet will likely claim that, oh, there’s still the opportunity in the Big Apple. I’m sure they’ll go out every once in a while and have coffee, you know. But in fact, clearly when you remove regional land and water boards, that opportunity is reduced substantially, that’s what we’re on about here.
The GNWT has continued, I am sure, to press Canada to retain a regional administrative capacity in each region and so on. This motion is meant to very much support them in that work.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are saying let’s work with our regional governments, regional Aboriginal governments. Let’s sit down with them, find out what structure they have in mind. We’re offering some suggestions on what Cabinet could take to the table. But let’s sit down with them and have those discussions and have them in a transparent way, publicly, so that everybody can contribute to the discussion if they so wish, and let’s capture those and put them in place.
Cabinet might say that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board is not responsible for conducting assessments for the Legislative Assembly. One might ask where does that come from, what would they be thinking. We work with federal counterparts all the time and I would submit that with devolution and with these sorts of amendments that are not supported by the people, we’re going to have to do that more and more.
I’m happy to say, in wrap-up, that basically, as stated in the recent hearings on Bill C-15 with respect to amendments to the MVRMA, the vast majority of problems the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has are associated with areas where the unsettled land claims are, not with the regional boards which have been proven effective and efficient.
The bottom line is we have a system that isn’t broken but the federal government is insisting on fixing it anyway, and against the will of our Aboriginal government partners and many residents. Our Aboriginal partners feel so strongly about this that they are thinking about taking the federal government to court. I know there’s a lot of work going on in that area. I don’t see how our Premier could ignore that factor or not speak up for their interests. Again, this is a majority of people we’re talking about here.
This motion recognizes this situation and proposes some mitigation measures to provide support to our regional partners to address the needs and gaps that would be left by C-15 amendments to the MVRMA, and it helps our land and management regime to continue its regional success with a strong regional role. In fact, I don’t doubt, as the Premier has said, there are a number of initiatives underway, so I would expect that the Cabinet should take this as support for those initiatives. But I hope they would also take it as making sure that those are very transparent and reported publicly to the people of the Northwest Territories and this House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know my seconder, Mr. Nadli, and I both very much appreciate the support of our colleagues here and very much look forward to debate on this motion put forward today. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I’ll allow the seconder of the motion, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of this motion because of the fact that on one hand devolution can be a good thing; however, on the flip side of this, unfortunately, we’re doing away with structures that happened and were long, battled-out boardroom discussions especially for claimant groups. I don’t prefer to speak on their behalf, but every inch that has been gained has been a long, hard battle, I believe, for regional land claim groups, and more so for unsettled regions that don’t have. In particular are the Dehcho First Nations and the Akaitcho Territory, and other groups more than likely down the line will want to negotiate a settlement at some point. This limits their opportunities to have a voice in terms of aspiring to become autonomous in terms of a region and working together collectively as a tribal alliance. This basically doesn’t really support their efforts.
I wanted to just highlight that in another time I had an opportunity to work in a forum where we were trying to move a negotiations process, and there are some very fundamental beliefs you have to try to get beyond. In this instance, there was a meeting that I personally attended, and we talked for about three days and they were talking about how, between First Nations and the federal government, they should be strictly bilateral, that it’s based on a treaty and it’s based on the principle that First Nations have brokered an arrangement through their treaties basically on the idea that it was a peace and friendship treaty, so, in that spirit, any kind of arrangement should continue to be bilateral. It took a long time to come to the realization that for us to move forward, we have to move beyond our fears, move beyond the concepts that had been embellished in our mind for a long time and had become part of the passionate beliefs that we had. After three days of meetings, it came to be that we had to expand our forum and allow ideas of a tripartite body of ensuring that First Nations, the Government of Canada and the GNWT would sit down at the same table and talk about issues that are affecting First Nations, but with a public interest at the end of the day that everyone’s interest and well-being of the NWT be considered.
That’s basically the philosophy I became familiar with. It’s helped me in terms of walking a path of ensuring that we listen to all the voices. One very strong lesson that I’ve learned through elders – and this House is founded on the idea of consensus – is we might disagree and we might agree to disagree, but at the same time we have to listen to each other to ensure we have respect. We are trying to understand what the other person is thinking in terms of their grievances, their perspective, and trying to not to become so entrenched in your position that at the end of the day you disregard the common interest that you are trying to build a relationship on.
Those principles have been the guide of how structures have been set up in the regions. Unfortunately, as well intended as this devolution process might be, it’s got some consequences. One of the ultimate and very clear consequences is it’s going to eliminate regional water boards.
Earlier I pointed out in the regional administrative structures within which the GNWT works, you have the Inuvik district centre, the Sahtu or Norman Wells district, the Fort Simpson district office and the Yellowknife district office. Then you have, perhaps, Deh Cho district offices, then Fort Smith, Hay River district offices. So you have regional structural organizations that could work well, yet we’re not building up on that. We’re pulling at the very foundation of ensuring that we work collaboratively together and respectfully within regions.
There was a time that this government was very strong in abdicating the idea of regional councils. Now they’re absent. Now what we have is tribal alliances. It’s most tribal First Nations that basically work to ensure the best interest of the regions. There was a time when this government funded regional councils so that municipal leaders and First Nations would come together and come to at least a common agenda of ensuring the regional interest was put first.
In that same experience, a prominent, very strong leader that I looked up to at the time explained to me how it is that we could certainly bridge the gap between what First Nations were thinking and the GNWT and its public aspirations to represent all the people of the NWT. This leader explained to me, regions are trying to set up self-government structures. Perhaps you think the path that you’ve taken is so far apart from what we think, but look at the regional district structures that the GNWT has in place. It’s so close to how, at some point, it can converge the GNWT and First Nations and they can work very closely together and pull their wills together to ensure we have a very good structure that works for all the regions but at the same time the people of the NWT.
I think we have structures and precedents in place that easily could be re-adapted, revitalized to ensure that regional voices do continue. I think this motion is constructive. The hard fact of reality is devolution is going forward. Unfortunately, in that same swipe, we’re doing away with regional boards. We have to show some leadership to the people out there that have perhaps lost sight of working together, becoming disenfranchised and at the same time being very fractured. Things are kind of in disarray, and I think this motion is a gesture of ensuring that there is another body that we stand for and that includes regional voices. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the mover, Mr. Bromley, and the seconder, Mr. Nadli, for bringing this motion forward as it is deserving of a spirited and fair debate in the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud all groups and residents who have commented on federal Bill C-15 leading up to today’s debate.
First of all, is this bill a perfect bill? I think many would say anything that provokes any type of change or provides a different vision is never truly perfect in design, as we are finding out. I know from other polls or speaking to many residents of Range Lake or Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, I found most are in favour of devolution and moving forward as we mature with province-like powers.
I don’t want to go into the detail of the bill or regurgitate the pillars behind the new federal legislation, as this is not my duty as an elected official of this House. Instead, I want to offer some general collective thoughts that I have received from many of my residents in preparation for today.
Many agree that we have much to learn and a lot more work ahead of us as we face the many challenges of resource potential. As a Northerner concerned about ensuring the future of our territory, I respect and understand the positions of Aboriginal governments and their current land claim agreements.
That said, there are still a number of incorrect or misleading ideologies that are surfacing that suggest our environmental process will be left in the hands of potentially unfamiliar people with some of these proposed changes. I believe we have seen improved processes with our land and water boards, as a general rule, and I believe we are striving for a territory for greater efficiency putting us, in my humble opinion, at the same level playing field as other jurisdictions such as our sister territory of the Yukon.
I also believe we still have a number of issues that need to be ironed out to make our mining and oil and gas sector a lot more effective. I don’t believe all our hopes and dreams are within the creation of a single board of the Mackenzie Valley as I believe this would be a tall order.
However, I believe this new concept should allow us to focus on more efficiency and, all the while, hopeful that we are able to concentrate and further develop our land use plans and have strong, continued negotiations for our unsettled land claims.
I firmly believe that all 33 communities and the regions of the NWT will continue to have the same, if not more, opportunities for effective management and dialogue in a post-devolution environment when home rule of our resources is managed right here in our backyard.
I wish to leave the Members of the House with a small excerpt from a presentation to the House of Commons’ standing committee on Bill C-15 from our very own NWT Chamber of Commerce as I believe it summarizes my final thought quite eloquently.
“In our view, Bill C-15 is the next logical and biggest single step forward in the devolution of powers of our territorial government in history. We are a resource-based economy. Managing our resources effectively and creating a healthy investment climate will support a strong local and national economy and provide significant benefits to all communities and to all residents. Bill C-15 is a new beginning for the Northwest Territories.”
Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, given the complex and very direct narrative within the context of this motion that is being asked of the GNWT to undertake, I will not be supporting this motion today. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion brought before the House today is one of concern of some Members and also some Aboriginal groups throughout the Northwest Territories. The concern, obviously, is the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act was included in Bill C-15 when it was brought into the House of Commons.
I was very lucky to attend the one here in the Northwest Territories at the Explorer Hotel. I listened to all types of individuals, leaders, past leaders, and new and future leaders speak about these bills and these provisions. I listened very carefully to all sides of the story and to the governments talk about how these provisions were in the land claims agreements when those were all signed. Now they are just bringing those out to address this issue.
Also, if you look at the reports that come out on the low grade the GNWT gets on the red tape system to get projects moving forward, which I also agree with. Obviously we did miss out on a big project in the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie Gas Project.
Those all lead up to something else that is great, our traditional land, pristine waters, environments. I was lucky enough to attend an event, I believe it was last night, where they showed the way people used to live off the land. It was really great to see that and also see the traditions carried on today in this day and age.
The MVRMA also talks about revisiting this in five years. I just want to bring forward that I’ve heard a lot of good things and some of our strong leaders were mentioning why fix something that’s not broken. They wanted to have their voice and concerns moved into this.
There was also some very good points brought up from the legal staff of these Aboriginal groups and Aboriginal leaders that pinpointed sections and clauses in the act that they didn’t agree with that needed to be addressed and they made sure that committee, at the time, was listening.
The motion itself just encourages something that this government is already doing, and that’s engaging our Aboriginal partners and Aboriginal leaders and continuing to discuss things going forward. I believe the motion is asking that our government continue those discussions and maybe encourage the dialogue to see the importance of these and whether or not amendments need to be made in five years to get this changed.
So I do thank Mr. Bromley and the seconder for bringing this to the table today and addressing the issues. For the fact of everything I heard during the hearing, I will support this to increase the dialogue and discussions and am looking forward to seeing if there is some resolve on this in the next five years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments I would like to make. I’d like to, first of all, thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Nadli for bringing this motion forward and bringing this issue into the public and for us to debate it.
I was also able to attend the hearings in front of the federal standing committee when they were here and it was a fascinating day. We heard from all sides and I was particularly impressed with the Aboriginal governments, who were extremely passionate about their position and about the impact the loss of the regional boards would have on them.
I think that one of the things that struck me the most, and it wasn’t from the Aboriginal governments but was from one of the later presenters, was the point that was made that closing off the regional boards will also close off the regional offices, which have the technical capacity to support the boards. I think that’s going to be a very large loss.
The Land and Water Board staff assist with the Land Use Planning Board staff. The Land Use Planning Board staff assist the Land and Water Board staff. To close one of those offices, the Land and Water Board office, means the technical capacity of that office is lost to the other one.
This motion, as Mr. Moses just said, asks the territorial government to do something that they are already doing and something we have done extremely well, and I have to commend this government for the work they’ve done with Aboriginal governments. We have excellent relationships, I think, with most of the Aboriginal governments within this territory now and that’s because of a great deal of hard work.
This motion asks the Government of the Northwest Territories to work with our regional government partners. If you’re doing it already, why should we not continue on and work with them on something which they think is so terribly important? I do believe that the regional voice will be lost if we lose our regional boards and I think if we have regional offices that will certainly provide both the technical capacity and the opportunity for a regional voice to be heard. Without the regional office, yes, the board will assign three people to act as a board for a hearing, there’s no guarantee that there will be any regional representation on that board.
A board, yes, is supposed to represent all residents of the NWT, but we know full well that that doesn’t always happen. There are issues that are particular to a region that the board members may not be aware of if they’re not part of that particular region.
Those are the most important things for me. I am in support of this motion and I think that it asks GNWT to do work which will only be for the benefit of residents. I think we will have a new Lands department come April 1st, and I think that there’s an opportunity for the asks in this motion to be combined with the lands offices that are going to be set up, but there needs to be a melding of the two jobs. We can’t just have the Lands department without also considering the work that the regional offices and the regional boards do right now.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I’d rise and make a couple comments quickly. My colleagues all had good points and I thank the mover and seconder for this motion.
At this time I feel it’s difficult in the fact that we are making a motion to talk about C-15, a federal motion, which, I mean, we have no jurisdiction on. The other thing is that, as Members have indicated, our government, the McLeod government, has been working with Aboriginal groups strongly. Devolution has been moving forward. Devolution is one of those things that’s going to give us control over the things in the Northwest Territories in the future, so this will allow us to do that, this type of stuff. I have full confidence in the government to work with the Aboriginal governments in the future when we have full control over these items.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to first rise and begin with something that I keep hearing about. I hear about all these southerners, and certainly I’m going to say this westerner, and when I say westerner, I’m actually referring to the Member of Parliament for the Yukon, and these southerners I sometimes refer to as these Albertans, and all I ever hear about is how much they want to make us like the Yukon. I have to tell you, I like the Yukon. I enjoy visiting there. I like the people there. I like the feel of the Yukon, but I don’t want to be the Yukon, and I wish people from Alberta and the Yukon would say you’d be better if you were like the Yukon. We’re Northerners. Yes. We share that. We’re brothers, sisters, friends, relatives, all those good things, but let them do business their way, no different than why we want Bill C-15 for the devolution portion. We want to do business our way, you know. No different.
People in Ottawa, if you’re listening – and I know you are – stop trying to make me and the rest of the Northwest Territories like the Yukon. I’m kind of getting tired of hearing that, because I think they have every right to be like themselves and I think we deserve every right to be like ourselves, so I wish they would stop that comparison about saying we’ve lost our way and things would be better if we were the Yukon. Well, please, nothing irritates me more.
When we first started off talking about devolution when I came in 2003, it was this distant dream. In 2007 it was off the table, then it was on the table, and now in this Assembly it’s not only on the table, we’re almost there. But when we talked about devolution, and certainly before this House, we talked about it in the context of assuming powers and responsibilities, but I don’t recall us ever having the chance to sit down, roll up our sleeves and say if you agree with the devolution portion, you’re now being served this, which is the reorg of these boards. Now, I understand why the Inuvialuit support it, because they get to keep their board. They get to do business their way. I can tell you I understand why the Gwich’in don’t want it, and I can understand why the Tlicho don’t want it, and I can understand why the Dehcho are concerned about it, and I can go on. They don’t want it. Many Aboriginal groups have fought very hard for their land claims, and I certainly respect that, and not just because it’s constitutionally protected, because it’s right, and that’s the difference is because it’s right. Is it because it’s protected? That just reaffirms why it’s important.
Now, signing this Devolution Agreement, yes, it makes sense. We have to follow the ability to do home rule, as I’ve called it many times, and I’m glad other people are calling it now, because that’s what it is. But by allowing this we’re forgetting why there were issues with the review board. What were they? Well, they were all linked to the federal government. Appointments weren’t made. Appointments weren’t made in a timely manner. They weren’t resourced. Decisions weren’t signed off. This is why this motion is here before us, is because the board itself could be working, could have been working and functioning very well, but yet, at the same time, it was being denied its ability to do the work it could have been doing. It was doing good work.
I ask this House and I challenge anyone to show me an application for development that they ever refused. There wasn’t any. They all found a way to work with industry. They have good, honest people with good intentions to provide opportunities for Northerners to work in partnership with industry to find a way so we can all achieve the same thing. Prosperity for everyone. Those are good things. But yet the federal government has decided, through its wisdom, that everything was going awry. The problems they’re trying to fix are the ones they created by not resourcing the board, by not making the appointments in a timely way, by not doing what they were obligated to do.
It frustrates me, as a resident of the Northwest Territories that this second half of the C15 bill was served up with the first half. Although I don’t normally agree with our parliamentarian Mr. Bevington, I do agree with his concept about splitting the bill. Many people share that perspective. It’s a very frustrating one to see. It’s two issues.
When I was in Inuvik in January, I had Senator Patterson lecture me about, oh, don’t worry, in 10 years you’ll be phoning me, he said, and saying you’re sorry, you were right, we should have done things this way. He told me. I think he’s wrong. I think in 10 years he’s going to be phoning me and telling me we were wrong and we should have listened to you, and the reason we should have listened to you is pointed out by people like Member Bisaro, and certainly highlighted passionately by folks like Member Nadli is the fact that people have these boards, they’re connected to them, they’re the regional boards. People are taking care of their land. What better way of doing this by ensuring that these regions are in touch with the modern issues that are affecting them at that day. I know no one more connected to the region than the people who govern, who belong there, where their ancestry pulled them towards those regions.
I don’t think we’re serving territorial citizens better. I think we’re serving the platform of the particular government in Ottawa better by only doing it this way, because they perceive there’s a problem with the system. There is no…
[Microphone turned off] …C-15. We’re talking to the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s why this motion is so important, because we have to reconnect what these things are doing. Rather than following along blindly of what’s being served up, we need to support this motion. Don’t be afraid, Cabinet. Don’t be afraid, Premier McLeod, or as Mr. Bouchard says, don’t be afraid, McLeod government, to release the shackles of Cabinet solidarity and vote with us. It’s true, because you want to deep down inside, and I can tell. I can see it right now. Be honest with yourselves. Don’t accept what the federal government’s had.
Mr. Bromley has presented an option for all residents. If we would give the chance for folks to recognize what’s really being fixed, I’m going to say nothing is being fixed by the federal government. Mr. Bromley is presenting an option here before all of us that can continue to do business in a good way. We will be in charge of the system. We can deal with appointments, as I said before. We can worry about the resourcing as we’ve had problems before. We can work together as dual Ministers, both territorial and federally, we’ll sign these things off together. We can do business the NWT way, the northern way about collaboration.
The last thing I’ll say is, in some manner or form, in my view, this is a setback by allowing what’s happening without a stance from our government. I mean our collective government. Premier McLeod came in and said I’m going to renew relations with Aboriginal governments in a new way. I’m going to bring those ties back. I’m going to strengthen the way we do business in the North, and in some ways he’s done that, but where is his voice on this one when the federal government divides us. This motion pulls us back together as a people, and to that I can only imagine, if people don’t know yet, I’ll be voting for it.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion is an interesting one, and certainly we heard from the Aboriginal governments at the Bill C-15 federal government public hearing at the Explorer Hotel. I concurred with my leader in the Sahtu, Ethel Blondin-Andrew, when she spoke to the bill. In 1993 the negotiators of the Sahtu Dene/Metis, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories completed their negotiations of a comprehensive land claim agreement, and we signed off and it became law in 1993-94. We were the second Aboriginal regional group to settle a land claim, the Gwich’in being the first in the Mackenzie Delta, but further than that it was the Inuvialuit that settled before any of us did in the southern portion of the North.
When we put our agreements together in the Sahtu, our agreement guarantees that the Sahtu Dene/Metis participation in land use planning, in the management of renewable resources, land and water and the Sahtu heritage resources, this participation will be through the membership on boards and through consultation.
Twenty years ago when we settled our land claim, we understood in the future, once all the other regions had come to a point of settling their own land claims, we would look at a territory-wide board. That’s what we understood. We said okay, but based on our elders’ guidance, we sought direction, we wanted decisions to be made as close to our communities as possible on our own lands, by our own members, with representatives from the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. We had no issue, but we understood that we were going to change this once all the territories had a settled land claim, then we would come together. We’ve only done it halfway.
I say this because we didn’t know in 20 years, from 1993-94, what was going to happen. We only understood and we knew that these boards would not be forever, we knew that, but the way that it was brought down to our land and water boards wasn’t the way that we envisioned. We knew that we wanted control of our lands. We know that the government has done a lot of hard work and they totally agree with having a voice and making decisions on our own land and our water in the future. That’s a given.
So one of the questions we ask, can the land claim agreement be changed after it becomes law? They said yes, if necessary. Either the Sahtu Dene/Metis or the government can propose a change. If both parties agree in the proposed change, amendment to the agreement is made. Now, there’s the catch: if both parties agree in the consultation. The consultation was we were told this is going to happen. Members of the Sahtu Land and Water Board said, why is this happening? We’re okay. We’re doing okay. Mr. Hawkins raises some concerns and I also heard that from the Sahtu Land and Water Board. It’s not us, it’s what’s happening in Ottawa; it’s what’s happening down there. They’re having a hard time dealing with some of the issues here. We’re doing okay. We’ve got a structure, we have certainty, we have an institution.
So the consultation, to our understanding, was big brother to little brother, this is how you shall do it and we looked at the land claim, but somehow the spirit and intent wasn’t upheld. They found a way around it so they don’t have to open the land claim agreement. It’s constitutional law, they don’t have to open it. So we thought, my goodness, when we settled in ‘93-94, the spirit and intent of law of our land claim, this is a modern day treaty. History repeats itself again. We went in with a strong spirit, strong intent, this is how we want to work together, but we cannot operate with this type of attitude coming out of Ottawa. We agree that we want to work hard with the governments to own our own lands, have a say in our own lands, but we certainly still have an issue with the basics of consultation and them telling us how good our treaty is. That is totally not fair.
So, as our leaders have spoken, we have to deal with the reality. That’s the part of the reality that doesn’t taste very good in our mouths. It doesn’t smell good, but that’s what we have to deal with. If we want to get ownership of our lands and resources, this has to come into play. It’s not very good, but that’s the reality of it. That’s the signal to the people of Canada, people of the Northwest Territories about the attitude of government. They sure fooled me as a former negotiator of the Sahtu Dene/Metis Land Claim that our guaranteed participation, our constitutional rights, can be played within a modern treaty.
So that’s something that we need to wrestle otherwise they’ll maintain a stranglehold on us, but they use sweet words and tactics to get what they want. I know that through this Bill C-15 we are going to receive some additional powers and responsibilities, but we’re still not yet released and totally free as a nation of people in the Northwest Territories, especially with what we negotiated in the Sahtu Dene/Metis. How sacred are our constitutional rights as Aboriginal people? If this is how they can come about making changes by using tactics of, well, you want control, it says in the land claim you’re going to have a full board. Well, I was there and I negotiated with David Osborn on this chapter and we had lawyers and that wasn’t the spirit and intent or what we were told. We thought we were going to have the real discussion.
So it’s quite the discussion we’re going to have around the North. Whether it’s right or not, but the numbers are there in Ottawa, the numbers are there in the Senate and the thing about this is, this is what we have to deal with. It’s going to go through Parliament and we’ll have to deal with it.
In closing, this motion is how is our government now, with this new legislation coming forward, going to deal with our Aboriginal governments and partners. Are we going to maintain some of Ottawa’s attitudes towards people in the Northwest Territories, or are we going to continue to explore how we can have that government-to-government relationship with our Aboriginal governments? That’s what this motion is calling for, I believe.
I’ll be supporting the motion, giving some recommendations to our government in the future so that it’s on record that we will start making some changes. I’m very encouraged that in five years we’ll have a review of our legislation. It just says review, it doesn’t say change or approve or make any type of changes to the legislation where we want to have full control back into the regions into the management of our resources and that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I stand here today and I’ll be supporting this motion. I’ve heard throughout my region about the old way of doing things and the old way of doing things was about not having enough enforcement, not having monitoring in the regions, in the communities and a lot of those old days decisions were about things were missed. Users of the land, the trappers and the hunters and the chiefs that go out there see how the land has been in disrepair. So that’s why they’ve got such a big liability when it comes to liability issues that the feds recognize. I’m really pleased to see that they will continue to try to clean up those lands that they are responsible for. But the whole point was that there wasn’t enough monitoring and enforcement at that time, and we see those effects here today.
Also, Bill C-15 with a super-board is disempowerment for our northern territories, our land claimant groups and those that are negotiating. We want more autonomy over our lands, not less, and this bill does that.
Bill C-15 amalgamates our boards, but I think our government has always said we can do things better, and I’m sure we can. That’s all this motion is asking for. Yes, we can improve on it. I know that we’re getting it and it speaks about amalgamating the boards into a super-board. In all our regions, yes, we’re frustrated with the Bill C-15 hearings, but I think it’s about getting our guaranteed involvement back, guaranteed consultation and guaranteed accommodation for meaningful input. That’s what this motion calls for, is trying to restore some of that action. While, in fact, it asks us to restore it completely, I don’t know if we can go there. I think the key thing is we want enforcement, monitoring, community involvement. Once again, the users of the land feel it’s very shameful every time they are left behind for someone to clean up, and it impacts all governments because we’re the ones that end up paying.
With that, once again, I will be supporting this motion and it begins just by maintaining our regional offices. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the mover and seconder for bringing this motion forward, although I will not be supporting it on the basis that two of the signatories that signed on to devolution are within my riding. As anybody who is familiar with negotiations, those are binding agreements. This is before the federal government at the moment and it hasn’t passed yet, but I realize that this is one of the deal breakers. Anyone who is familiar with negotiations knows that there are deal breakers in any agreement, and this is one of them.
As we move closer to devolution, we have just over 40 days to go, I’m not sure if that is one of the tactics of this motion before this House. There’s a good chance that our Devolution Agreement will not go forward if this motion is passed here today.
As I said, two of the signatories to the Devolution Agreement have signed on, and for that reason I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House contains a number of factual errors that I would like to correct. In the spirit of consensus government, I will, of course, acknowledge where the motion is in fact accurate.
The motion is correct in stating that the Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act, to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Land and Resources Devolution Agreement. This motion does not, however, reference that Bill C-15 has passed third reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Senate. Changes to federal legislation are not within the purview of this government.
This Assembly voted 17 to 1 in support of devolution, which will take place on April 1, 2014. However, I welcome the opportunity to correct a number of factual errors in this motion and in other materials currently circulating so that the residents of the Northwest Territories are not left with erroneous and misleading information.
The motion states that Bill C-15 will eliminate our regional land and water boards and form a single Yellowknife-based land and water board with only one representative from each region. Bill C-15 does in fact provide for the amalgamation of current land and water boards.
The motion is correct, if not misleading, in that the administration of the board will be in Yellowknife, but board members will continue to be from across the Northwest Territories. In fact, regional land and water boards don’t belong to the Government of the Northwest Territories; whereas, the motion says our water boards. They are institutions of public government, just as the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board is now and will remain. The board will continue to review any applications that impacts more than one region. Their role will expand to encompass the entire Mackenzie Valley.
The current board members of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board have the full confidence of this government. Their decisions are measured, rational and comprehensive.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the board chair and the current and previous board members who have served and continue to serve the people of the Northwest Territories with distinction and integrity.
With respect to representation on the amalgamated board, there is a provision in Bill C-15 to allow three people to be appointed to review the application, including at least one member appointed from an Aboriginal government. This provides for representation similar in proportion to the current representation on regional boards.
There is also a provision to allow the chairperson to designate additional board members to deal with the application in addition to the three people designated. This provides continued real representation.
I would like to point out that the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, MVEIRB, is a similar institution that functions without regional panels. Concerns have not been expressed that MVEIRB is not representative of the people of the Northwest Territories. It is unclear why this motion implies that an amalgamated board cannot function in the same way.
It is also important to recognize that board members, while nominated by parties, are not there to represent their region or government but are tasked with assessing projects in the best interests of the public. They must, and do, consider the views and concerns in the communities and regions affected along with the territorial interests. This won’t change. This framework is the basis of all board appointments.
I would like to point out and emphasize that the establishment of the Intergovernmental Council with our Aboriginal partners will provide a forum for important collaboration. In this way, the views of Aboriginal governments will continue to be articulated and heard by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
The second clause of the motion states that our Aboriginal government partners and many Northwest Territories residents oppose this amalgamation. Aboriginal governments have expressed their concerns about the amalgamation. We respect and understand their positions. I do not, however, agree that many Northwest Territories residents oppose this amalgamation. The motion says “many.” There is nothing to substantiate that statement.
We can argue about the semantics, but at the end of the day our democracy provides the right of the federal government to make changes to federal legislation as long as it does not contravene other obligations such as land claim agreements. The current land claim agreements do provide for a single board.
The GNWT will continue to work with our Aboriginal government partners through existing processes and through the Intergovernmental Council as we assume the management of lands and resources in the Northwest Territories. This is a commitment in the Devolution Agreement and I look forward to evolving our land and resource management with our partners after devolution.
The motion then goes on to say that the intent of land claim settlements was to establish and maintain regional land and water boards as they currently exist so that decisions were made by people most familiar with regional issues. Mr. Speaker, this is incorrect.
All land claim agreements clearly provide for or contemplate the establishment of a single, larger board for the Mackenzie Valley. It is misleading to suggest that decisions will be made by people unfamiliar with regional issues. The environmental assessment process will continue to provide opportunities for input from residents, organizations and governments and regions. It is also important to note again that the chair can appoint three people to hear the application including a member from the region impacted. Additional members can also be added.
The fourth clause of the agreement states regional land and water boards have an excellent track record and evaluations show that they are effective and efficient. The land and water boards have improved their processes; however, Canada continues to strive for greater efficiency that would put the Northwest Territories on a level playing field with other jurisdictions. There is no reason to believe that a single larger board would not be effective and efficient as a series of smaller boards. It must also be recognized that a larger board is also already functioning.
The fifth clause states that amalgamating regional land and water boards does not address the core issues of unsettled claims, timing of ministerial decisions and findings of previous audits. Mr. Speaker, I can agree that there is always room for improvement. In fact, this government has consistently stated that a range of issues needed to be addressed to make the system effective and efficient. However, this motion seeks to fault board amalgamation for not fixing other concerns with the regulatory process, such as unsettled land claims and past delays in ministerial decisions. Lumping these issues together is a smokescreen for a separate partisan agenda.
It is worth noting that the other issues have been consistently raised by this government and we will work towards resolving them with Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and Aboriginal governments.
It is also important to remember that the whole premise behind devolution is to provide more decision-making authorities to the people of the Northwest Territories. This includes ministerial decision-making for Northwest Territories public lands. Northwest Territories Ministers will be more responsive and ensure timely decision-making.
Clause 6 states that the Government of the Northwest Territories will achieve substantial new designated and actual authorities to manage land and water on Northwest Territories territorial lands effective April 2, 2014. This is accurate.
I’m pleased to once again advise this House and the people of the Northwest Territories that through devolution the Government of the Northwest Territories will have new and very real legal authorities both delegated and under its own legislation. These authorities will operate within the integrated land and water management system negotiated in comprehensive land claim agreements. It is appropriate that Members recognize these as substantial and meaningful.
These new authorities achieved through devolution will help deal with some of the historical issues that have been problematic, including more timely decision-making by Ministers closer to home and directly accountable to this Legislative Assembly and Northwest Territories citizens.
Clause 7 states that a guiding principle of a draft Northwest Territories Land Use and Sustainability Framework is that communities and regions have the opportunity for meaningful engagement and input into land use decisions. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is correct. The LUSF speaks to how we will deal with the management of public lands in the Northwest Territories setting a standard of doing business consistent with GNWT practices. Whether there is an integrated board or regional boards will not affect the government’s commitment to the sustainable management of land. Communities and regions will continue to have the opportunity for meaningful engagement post-devolution through enhanced access to a more local, responsive government.
Clause 8 states that staffed regional offices would help maintain regional capacity and enable the accustomed regional input into the land, water and resource management monitoring and enforcement process. As mentioned previously, communities and regions will continue to have the opportunity for meaningful engagement no matter what form the board takes.
Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. There’s a whole post-devolution system being set up that will ensure meaningful participation in the management of land, water and wildlife on public lands.
On April 1st the GNWT will increase its existing regional presence through its post-devolution organizational design. In addition to 27 AANDC regional positions, 25 new regional positions are being added. These included renewable resource officers, water resource officers, lands officers and land use advisors. We have also taken oil and gas functions currently located in Ottawa and placed them in Inuvik.
The Government of the Northwest Territories continues to press Canada to retain a regional administrative capacity in each region to ensure local access to board processes including applications for permits and information about processes. There are ongoing discussions with Canada on its implementation of Bill C-15 including the need to maintain regional capacity.
The Government of the Northwest Territories is committed to working with Aboriginal governments through the Intergovernmental Council. We expect the Intergovernmental Council will provide the opportunity for all parties to work together to monitor the implementation of Bill C-15 and to work through issues and concerns around the transition into an integrated Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.
As we devolve and then evolve, I for one am looking forward to witnessing the development of land and water authorities and I have full confidence that the people of the Northwest Territories will contribute in meaningful, intelligent and profound ways. I know we are up to the job, Mr. Speaker. We are ready to take on this authority despite what some might insinuate. We are capable and we are ready.
I want to encourage our youth in all communities to consider what devolution will mean for them and their families. They are the voices we will need to hear as our territory evolves. The federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories are on schedule and on track for implementation of devolution on April 1, 2014. The people of the Northwest Territories deserve this authority. Through them, this House is the steward of our land, water, wildlife and natural resources. We have a responsibility to be leaders, leaders who find a way forward on a complex path. Providing accurate, factual information to the people of the Northwest Territories is a role of leadership. This government will continue to do that.
Cabinet will not be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Colleagues, now I’d like to recognize the mover of the motion, Mr. Bromley, to close debate.
MR. BROMLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, colleagues throughout the House here, for your contributions. I think we had a very good debate today. In fact, probably the most important role is to listen to our public, listen to our people and respond to their desires. That’s what we’re on about here today.
I think a number of good points were raised, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate that we have this situation because, as many people said, there’s much support for devolution.
We’ve talked about this. In the spirit of the peace and friendship treaty, there should have been accommodation and discussions between Aboriginal groups and the federal government. We heard that very strongly and we are left in a situation where the public trust, public interest, has been ignored.
So let’s build a relationship with Aboriginal governments by working collaboratively with them on this issue. That’s a very strong theme that’s come out and was repeatedly mentioned.
GNWT has a comprehensive regional approach. That was an interesting point. We certainly do, so there’s huge potential for working together. There’s a big overlap with these big regional governments and it was mentioned that this motion represents a positive approach.
Again, one Member respected Aboriginal governments and claims but referred to the Yukon. Again, that was a misconception, in my mind, that was well laid out by Mr. Hawkins.
It’s less efficient. Again, I think it was well addressed in the remarks we heard today. The efficiency was clear. Again, I think the mining industry and development industry is very nervous because they realize that this new structure is likely to slow things down.
Several Members mentioned listening very closely at the hearings. I believe the Premier missed a good part of that. He made his presentation, the first presentation at the hearings, and then left, which was unfortunate if that was the case. Clearly, our people’s voices have not been reaching him and he has not been speaking for our people.
The motion encourages government to confine what they were doing already, to continue what they’re doing already and to work collaboratively, again seeking ways to resolve issues that are arising as a result of this new structure being put in place against the will of our people.
The loss of technical capacity is a huge part of what this bill is meant to do. It’s meant to recognize all of the positive things that have developed as a result of regional boards and technical capacity in regional offices. Is there a way we can capture those benefits? I appreciate that point. Again, working with regional partners will strengthen their voices.
There is potential for integrating with new lands offices that are being planned again. This office could be taken by the Premier and is so much in line with so many of the things he is contemplating.
The suggestion that we have no jurisdiction in this because it’s federal legislation is simply not relevant here. This motion is not commenting on bills, it’s trying to deal with the results of the federal legislation that is about to be passed and implemented a year from now.
One Member had full confidence in the government to deal with the situation and that represents the diversity of opinion in the House.
Again, devolution, yes, but why should we have to pay for the other half of amendments to the MVRMA? That’s been repeatedly raised.
The regional boards clearly have a record of success and we want to capture their benefits.
An interesting couple of comments were the elucidation, really, of what the claims perspectives were by Mr. Yakeleya. Guaranteed positions on boards and so on, including territorial boards, but only after all land claims are settled and only then. Of course, this has not been achieved yet. One can’t help but wonder if this is going to postpone seriously getting down to work in our land claims in unsettled regions.
Aboriginal governments in claims areas where claims have been successfully put in place expected a strong opportunity for input in discussions with respect to the large board and they were prepared to have those discussions. I know they went to many meetings, but both parties didn’t agree, so again the spirit and intent of the agreements were not upheld, and there’s recognition that we have to deal, they have to deal with the reality, and I think we, as a government, have a responsibility to listen to them and work with them collaboratively.
It was mentioned that this is going back to the old ways, the colonial ways of doing things, and it represents a disempowerment rather than empowering of people to have a voice over their regions, and also about getting back constitutional rights and focused on successful oversight that regional authority brings.
The suggestion that this is part of devolution and not being able to support it because people have signed on and that’s a deal breaker, that again misses the mark here. That’s not an issue with this motion. I can assure Members of that. Because this bill before the House, Bill C-15, again, had nothing to do with that. This is a motion that directs us to prepare for when that bill is actually put into place and its consequences.
Again, Premier McLeod mentioned that there are a lot of accuracies and errors in the motion. I would suggest…
[Microphone turned off.] …to the motion. Closing remarks. I know you want to speak to the motion, not picking apart what everybody said, but your closing remarks, Mr. Bromley. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, I have to rebut some of his remarks, although I did in my introductory remarks so I won’t go into too much detail here. Again, he talked about Bill C-15 and so on. Again, some of his remarks, unfortunately, were not relevant. A number of half-truths; again, they’re interpretations, and I think I addressed those in my earlier remarks.
I think, just to get to the chase here, bringing forward the crystal clear voices of our public is what this motion is really all about. The issue is our residents have decried the loss of the regional boards and we are in a position to work with them to help mitigate the impacts. The motion proposes that this government sits down with our Aboriginal partners, and in a transparent way, to see if there are opportunities for collaborative action to capture the benefits that the regional boards have developed. We happen to have a focus on water, a focus on land, a focus on resources and on Aboriginal governments, so the opportunity is huge.
