I think the Premier basically repeated what I just said. I guess I was asking for confirmation that he would put such a clause for review in the legislation, if indeed that was indicated from a review, but I will assume that that general statement was agreement with that but welcome any additional comments.
I guess when we’re going forward with this review, we have a new policy, the Land Use and Sustainability Framework that has come in just recently at the same time that we’ve received this legislation. Would the Premier ensure sort of a sustainability review in that process combined with Members and public input in which we would consider such guiding principles, as I’ve mentioned previously, as transparency, accountability and consistency with co-management of resources, and finally, equity amongst regions, social class and future generations?
As I’ve indicated, I will be pleased to work with committee to come up with a process that would be acceptable to all.
That’s really all I had on the general comments. I think, obviously, we and the general public would be interested if there was a schedule available as of April 1st or whenever the Premier could come up with it to help the public and Members prepare. I think that’s just a notice that that would be appreciated as soon as that was available.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. More of a comment. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’d be pleased to make sure that the public is aware of what we are doing so that they will have adequate time for input.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Next, general comments, I have Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, had some comments. This is the first of a series of legislation that are going to be mirrored to move the devolution forward. I just wanted to highlight a couple of comments and end off with a question.
Throughout this process as we contemplate this mirror legislation, what got us here was the negotiations process towards devolution. Usually in a negotiation process you have parties, and each party that’s represented at the table reports to their principals. Of course, in the negotiations process, parties agree to the subject matter that needs to be negotiated and, at the same time, consider at least the parameters or the framework of just the scope of perhaps the subjects to be negotiated. Then after that, as the parties roll up their sleeves and hopefully come to the point of an agreement-in-principle, which we will witness. Beyond that, it’s basically the final stretch towards the final agreement. Where we’re at, at this point, is we’re poised to move towards April 1, 2014, and we’re going to be implementing or operating the provisions in terms of how the Devolution Agreement is supposed to work.
The key in that, for me, is understanding the role of the principles, the role of the principals of the GNWT and the parties, of course. In that role in the relationship is how the whole devolution process came about. I don’t really want to dwell on the “should have beens” but the fact of the reality is we’re here today.
In saying that, as legislators, our role, as I understand it, we represent our constituents on very important and pressing matters we raise in the House. If there is enough common support amongst our colleagues, we work in consensus and arrive at a point where we can move towards legislating actions to remedy concerns. That’s the role I believe we have.
The comfort in this process at this point is, indeed, the Premier has committed that at some point there will be a review process and perhaps an amending mechanism in terms of some legislation in what is before us.
We also have to reflect on what brought us here. For a long time, being a student of politics and First Nations, especially at the community level, seeing my grandparents and my parents and my uncles in leadership roles, what the struggle was all about was the land in terms of lifestyle. We are a nomadic people, the Dene, who roamed throughout this land and developed their culture around the seasons, springtime, summer, fall and winter, and moving to where the fish were, the inlands of big land masses. We moved to the shores of bigger lakes where moose were more plentiful. That became the fundamental basis of the First Nations and ensuring their lifestyles were maintained. Their very innate relationship with the land or the environment was connected all the time. We try to maintain that culture for as long as we can. That became the premise of the movement of First Nations towards protecting the land and our culture.
So this is where we’re at. It’s basically about the land. Some people say that perhaps the land has changed. Some people would also say we’ve changed, the land hasn’t changed; it’s us. So, in that respect, we look forward to the dawning reality of April 1st, a new age of the NWT, of perhaps looking back and ensuring that what we have learned from the past, we’ll put in our pockets like our elders did, that rock on the trail of going very courageously into the future and making the best possible place in the world for future generations to come.
I feel comfortable today that that plateau has been reached by the leaders of the day. Of course, the parties that were involved in the process were the government, the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories. As we move forward, there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Fundamentally, there is still a strong stand in terms of the relationship that became what is the treaty of 1921 and 1899, that puts into relationship First Nations and the federal government. That is still strongly standing. Some groups have gone to modernize those treaties and called them land claims. In modernizing their treaties, those land claims were put into the constitution, Section 35. That’s where we’re at today.
For the most part, a lot of the key initiatives were based on a lot of the accomplishments of land claim agreements, some benchmarks, the Dene/Metis Agreement-in-Principle, some discussions on constitutional advancement, the Bourque Commission, those laid pillars of discussions that will signal to the parties that we need to define the framework of this House so we can all sit at the table equally, not one sitting below another.
I would like to, at some point, witness the day when that time will come. Many of the leaders who have passed before me, many elders who have walked this path, I am hoping to witness that at some point.
In saying that, my question the other day was to the Premier. A lot of the key initiatives that government has reached are based on co-management and collaboration. As we make changes to the devolution process, key pending agreements and major initiatives, we’re trying to improve things, make things better. One of the key things that we’ve pushed forward is we’re going to set up a new structure that supposedly is to be very effective and timely in terms of decision-making processes.
I would like to know, once again, what kind of land management regime should we expect after April 1, 2014? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we have been working on, we’ve been working on for over six years and that’s to develop a Land Use Sustainability Framework. We’ve also been working with Aboriginal government partners so we can together manage all of the land in the Northwest Territories. Obviously, as the Member knows, Aboriginal governments are the largest land holders in the Northwest Territories through land claim agreements. What we’ve agreed on is we will work together so we can manage all of the land under their respective jurisdictions and try to have a land management process that is coordinated, collaborative and provides for interests of all of the people that we all represent. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Is the committee prepared to go clause by clause?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We’ll defer the first page of Bill 1. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 9 inclusive approved
Bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 1, Reindeer Act, is ready for third reading?
---Bill 1 as a whole approved for third reading
Thank you, committee. Bill 1 is now ready for third reading.
We’ll move on to Bill 2, Archaeological Sites Act. Premier McLeod.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, Archaeological Sites Act. The passage of this legislation is an important step towards implementing the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.
The Archaeological Sites Act will provide the Northwest Territories with the authority to mirror the Northwest Territories Archaeological Sites Regulations under the Northwest Territories Act. The mirroring of these regulations is a requirement of the Devolution Agreement.
Under the Devolution Agreement, the GNWT is committed to “substantially mirror” Canada’s statutes and regulations that are being repealed or made inapplicable to public lands transferring to the GNWT through devolution.
The mirroring exercise means that the new GNWT laws will address the same matters, in substantially the same way, as federal laws do now. Mirroring principles limited changes to addressing issues such as correcting outdated language and applying GNWT drafting standards.
Mirrored legislation is a practical first step to ensure a continued delivery of services on April 1, 2014. Mirrored legislation also ensures that there are no legislative gaps or overlaps between the GNWT and Canada.
The parties to the Devolution Agreement entered into a Protocol for Review of Devolution Legislation. Under this protocol, all parties have had the opportunity to review and comment on this legislation before it was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. We have considered these comments carefully in preparation of the bill before you.
The Archaeological Sites Act mirrors the provisions of the present Northwest Territories Act respecting archaeological, ethnological and historical resources, and provides authority to make regulations concerning the protection, care and preservation of these resources, archaeological permitting, and seizure of inappropriately obtained items.
As required in the Devolution Agreement, the Government of the Northwest Territories will also mirror the Northwest Territories Archaeological Sites Regulations that are currently under the Northwest Territories Act.
The Department of Education, Culture and Employment will administer the new mirrored Archaeological Sites Act and the regulations under that act, consistent with its responsibilities for the existing territorial Historical Resources Act.
I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Committee will allow the chairperson of the standing committee, Ms. Bisaro, to review comments on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has reviewed Bill 2, Archaeological Sites Act.
Pursuant to the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, Bill 2 substantially mirrors the Government of Canada’s Archaeological Sites Regulations as provided for in the Northwest Territories Act.
This act applies to all matters respecting archaeological sites and artifacts that were previously governed by the federal Northwest Territories Act and Northwest Territories Archaeological Sites Regulations.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 2 to the Assembly as ready for further consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 2. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Would the Premier like to take the witness table now? Thank you.
Premier McLeod, if you could reintroduce your witnesses to the House, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On my right I have Kelly McLaughlin, director of legislation for the Department of Justice; to my left I have Jamie Fulford, legal counsel with the Department of Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. Fulford, welcome again to the House.
Committee, general comments? Mr. Yakeleya.
Just for clarification with this new responsibility that we’re going to receive under Bill 2 and the passing of this legislation, certainly it will bring the control mechanism of making decisions and having protection of our heritage sites, our archeological sites closer to the North. I just wanted to ask the Premier for a clarification on the modern land claims and modern treaties, comprehensive land claims. In chapter 26 we speak to the heritage resources and provisions in these chapters would be respected and that is inconsistent with the existing legislation. Our Constitution document supersedes what we have now. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. For that we’ll go to Mr. Fulford.
Mr. Chair, yes, I can advise of that as correct that each of the land claims contains a provision that ensures that it is paramount to the extent of any conflict with either federal or territorial legislation. So that would include not only this act but the full suite of mirror legislation and in fact any other GNWT law. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fulford. General comments. Is committee prepared to go clause by clause?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, we’ll defer the first page. Committee, clause 1.
----Clauses 1 through 9 inclusive approved
To the bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 2, Archeological Sites Act, is ready for third reading?
----Bill 2 as a whole approved for third reading
We’ll turn your attention to discussions on review of Bill 3. With that, we’ll go to the proponent of Bill 3, Premier McLeod, for the opening comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 3, Surface Rights Board Act. The passage of this legislation is an important step towards implementing the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.
The new Department of Lands will administer the Government of the Northwest Territories’ new authorities under the Surface Rights Board Act.
Under the Devolution Agreement, the GNWT is committed to “substantially mirror” Canada’s legislation that is repealed or made inapplicable to public lands transferring to the GNWT through devolution.
Mirrored legislation means that the GNWT’s laws will address the same matters, in substantially the same way, as federal laws do now.
Mirrored legislation also means that changes have been limited to addressing issues such as outdated language and to match the legislation with GNWT drafting standards.
Mirrored legislation is a practical first step to ensure a continued delivery of services on April 1, 2014. Mirrored legislation also ensures that there are no legislative gaps or overlaps between the GNWT and Canada.
The parties to the Devolution Agreement entered into a Protocol for Review of Devolution Legislation Agreement. Under this protocol, all parties have been able to review and comment on this legislation before it was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. We have considered these comments carefully in preparation of the bill before you.
The Surface Rights Board Act will establish a Surface Rights Board as an institution of public government that will resolve disputes related to land access and related compensation when a negotiated agreement cannot be reached.
The Surface Rights Board will be made up of five to nine members and five alternate members. These members will be appointed for a term of five years and must include members from the Gwich’in, Inuvialuit, Sahtu and Tlicho areas.
To meet its obligations, the Surface Rights Board will be able to grant binding access orders and the terms and conditions of that access, including where, when, who that access can be exercised as well as what activities can be exercised as part of that access.
The Surface Rights Board will also be able to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid for the right of access, will be able to terminate access orders and award costs related to its proceedings.
The establishment of the Surface Rights Board and this legislation reflects an obligation of the comprehensive land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories.
The territorial mirrored Surface Rights Board Act will come into force in two phases:
those provisions related to the establishment of the Surface Rights Board and regulation-making authority come into force on April 1, 2014, while
the board will start its substantive functions on April 1, 2016.
The Government of the Northwest Territories is already taking steps to ensure that the Surface Rights Board can assume these functions, including the appointment of members to the board.
I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Committee, we’ll go to the chairperson of the Priorities and Planning standing committee that reviewed the bill for general comments. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has reviewed Bill 3, Surface Rights Board Act.
The Surface Rights Board Act mirrors federal legislation, pursuant to the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement. The act provides for a Surface Rights Board to resolve disputes relating to terms and conditions of access to lands and waters, chiefly for commercial purposes. This includes disputes over compensation for access.
The act covers Gwich’in, Sahtu and Tlicho lands and waters as well as Inuvialuit lands and other lands in the NWT.
Alternatives North provided comments on Bill 3 related to the future board’s powers and jurisdiction. The committee carefully considered these comments and thanks Alternatives North for their participation and thorough critique.
During the clause-by-clause review with the Premier, a minor amendment was made to correct the French version of the bill. The Premier concurred with the amendment. A motion was subsequently carried to report Bill 3 to the Assembly as ready for further consideration in Committee of the Whole as amended and reprinted.
This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 3. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Premier McLeod, if you can join us at the witness table, please. Premier McLeod, if you can once again reintroduce your witnesses to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right I have Kelly McLaughlin, the director of Legislation with the Department of Justice. To my left I have Jamie Fulford, legal counsel with the Department of Justice. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Again, Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. Fulford, thank you for joining. General comments. I’ll go to Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the Premier and staff on Bill 3 here. I have a few questions here, generated through our call for comments from the public. The first is by way of comment really. The questioning of the need for this legislation as there are provisions in existing legislation and land claims agreements for dispute resolution related to surface rights, not to mention that I’m not aware of any disputes in the settled land claim areas. But obviously a Surface Rights Board, it’s an added inefficiency and expense, but it seems to be required here, been deemed necessary. Given that it should have the authority to deny access when conditions indicate that such a denial would be appropriate, does this legislation provide for that potential? Thank you,
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On occasion, especially in the discussion with the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline there was an indication there that a surface rights board would have facilitated some discussions, because without a Surface Rights Board Act, the only tool available to deal with disputes would be arbitration. But with regards to the specific question, Mr. Chair, through you I’ll ask Mr. Fulford to respond. Thank you.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Fulford.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This act relates just to relating disputes as to access. So it doesn’t create any new priority for who can access. If you, for example, have a right under the mining regulations to access, a subsurface right, this doesn’t take that right away from you. What it does is it gives the board the ability to determine the terms and conditions of that access. So the board, when it’s reached that stage where there is no agreement from the surface holder, is obligated to make an access order and the only question is the terms of access. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fulford. Mr. Bromley.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, when an exploration company, for example, wants to stake mineral claims inside a community, which has happened inside some of the Tlicho communities, obviously, and understandably, people were very upset, and a clear basis for denial of access, but I believe there is archaic legislation related to a free entry system that does provide a right to exploration companies to do that. Am I correct in saying this legislation does not correct that injustice and would not be able to deny access in that case? Thank you.
In that case, it would be the mining regulations that speak to whether or not the land can be accessed. There’s a list of areas, for example, that can be staked. Staking can’t occur, for example, in lands that are set aside for conservation purposes under an approved land use plan. So, there’s a mechanism there for taking lands out of the free entry process, but this legislation doesn’t serve that function.
I think the suggestion from the public is that it should, but I appreciate that clarity. I would urge all municipalities to declare themselves conservation zones.
Another comment is the board should have the ability to acquire financial security to ensure compliance with board orders and to shift the burden of proof and risks to the developer rather than the surface rights holder. Does this legislation, in fact, do that? Thank you.
The policy behind this legislation is that the regulatory process determines the security that’s held for developments and it’s not the role of the board, under this legislation, to establish a security requirement. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The board should reflect a co-management model where Aboriginal and public governments each appoint half of the members. Is that the case in the board created by this legislation? Mahsi.
The model that’s established for this legislation and for this board is different than the model for other institutions of public government set up under the land claim agreements. For those boards, the Environmental Impact Review Board and the land and water boards, the Aboriginal parties to the land claim agreements nominate members for appointment to that board. In this case, the land claim agreements do not establish such a requirement, but the members of the board are selected from each of the settlement areas, so there’s a regional representation achieved in that way. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
