Thank you. And there's been comments about protecting, you know, other protecting governments. The legislation's not about protecting governments, it's about ensuring that workers get paid. And the GNWT is not an entity that we're worried about being insolvent. There's not a concern that the GNWT won't pay their bills. There's you know, we hear concerns from the Members about when the bills get paid, but the issue isn't that they won't get paid. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. So okay, I got an explanation as to why the Minister and Cabinet believe that this shouldn't apply to GNWT. Why does it apply, then, to municipal governments? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. Municipal governments don't have the same powers of taxation. They don't have the same revenue as the GNWT. And there's chances that they could be in a situation where they can't pay workers. And we also have to look at the bill as a whole and what is the point of the bill if, you know, we add more and more and more exclusions, then are we really fulfilling the spirit of this legislation. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, that's kind of my thoughts exactly. If this doesn't apply to GNWT, why are we doing it? Will this bill apply to Indigenous governments and will it allow seizure and sale of Indigenous owned lands? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. Indigenous governments are bound would be bound by this act as well. And I will say that if municipalities and Indigenous governments were in the same position as the GNWT, they would then have to comply with other they'd have to abide by the surety bond section of the act, which would mean that they would have to have contracts that are bondable, which would have an impact on could have an impact on their ability to get people to do work in certain regions of the territory as well. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay, thanks, Madam Chair. I'll try the second part of my question again. Will this bill enable the seizure and sale of Indigenous owned lands? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Private lands can be seized and sold. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. So will that include settlement lands; you know, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, some of the Sahtu entities, the Gwich'in Tribal Council actually own some lands surface, subsurface, sometimes both for the same parcel. This bill would enable seizure and sale of those settlement lands? I just want to confirm how GNWT's going to interpret this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. So I will hand it to Mr. Yap for a more detailed explanation. Thank you.
Mr. Yap.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer the Member's question, it really depends on the nature of the land in question and the terms of that land in the land claim or selfgovernment agreement. So depending on how that land is structured or the type of ownership, it may or may not be. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, okay, if I wasn't concerned before, now I really am. If GNWT's going to interpret this bill in a manner that may allow for seizure and sale of Indigenous settlement lands, I'm voting against it right now. This is just not right. And the department doesn't seem to have done the work to discuss this with Indigenous governments. This is not a good place to be. So I guess I let's start with what engagement was done with Indigenous governments on this bill? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. And further to Mr. Yap's comments, this would not apply to settlement lands.
Engagement that was done with Indigenous governments occurred during the committee process actually. The chair referenced this. We reached out to a number of the Indigenous governments and organizations in the territory explaining the situation and requested feedback on potential inclusion of Indigenous governments or exclusion from the act. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay, thanks. I don't know how do I get at this. The first answer I got was yes, it does apply or may and then it may apply in certain circumstances. And now it's not going to apply to settlement lands. So I kind of think I heard three different answers. And I'm not a lawyer, but I want to know how the government, GNWT's, going to interpret this, because I don't want this stuff to end up in the courts. I don't want workers to go unpaid because people there's some uncertainty as to the application of this bill. I don't want Indigenous governments to have to go to court to sort this stuff out. So I guess I just want a little more detail here and explanation as to why I got three different answers. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So there's settlement lands. There's other types of lands that might be owned by an Indigenous government. And the Member's probably I know the Member's more of an expert on land than I am. I know that's his background. He came here in 1985 to work on those types of issues, so. And I can perhaps hand it to Mr. Yap for some further explanation of how the land if the Member would like. I know we're on his clock here. So, yes, I see him shrugging. So to Mr. Yap. Thank you.
Mr. Yap.
In terms of how the GNWT would interpret it, it's not really a question for the GNWT to determine what land is sold or seized. That would be a question for the courts to determine. But I can say that settlement land would not be subject to seizure or sale because of the hierarchy of the laws and because it's done through a treaty process. There are different types of Indigenous governments and different terms of different land claim agreements. Some of them hold municipal lands. Some of them hold fee simple lands. Some of them hold lands that are owned by that may or may not be the holders of a current land claim agreement right now. So it really depends on what type of land. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Member finally getting there. Yeah, I just you I think if you applied to sell, you know, the Tlicho, Gwich'in, or Inuvialuit, or Sahtu settlement lands under a constitutionallyprotected agreement, you just can't. That's pretty clear to me. But it's less clear to me whether how, you know that's kind of just a backstop saying you can't sell them. How is the government interpreting this applying to them? So this is passed. Someone doesn't get paid on a Tlicho project on their lands and goes to file a lien, is land titles going to accept a lien on those lands? Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Yap.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the land titles office would accept the submission of a claim of a lien because it's just a claim except in the situation where it is a stricter title that's already been issued where it clearly states one of the basis for the title that it is settlement lands. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you. And just so I'm also abundantly clear about the binding the government part, I understand we're not selling public land or government land but if someone builds a health centre and doesn't get paid and it's on public land, assuming the Public Land Act has been implemented, and they go to file a lien, would they accept the claim of lien or would that be a no? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. No, but when it comes to the GNWT, there are other ways that we protect workers. So I know the Department of Finance has introduced new security requirements for bids and contracts earlier this year, and that will help protect small businesses, specifically those engaged in constructing GNWT projects, by providing adequate payment coverage through labour and material bonds. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Does committee agree that there are no further general comments that we can proceed to a clause by clause review of the bill?
Agreed.
Which committee, we will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. We will now consider the clauses in groups. Please turn to page 12 of the bill.
Clauses 1 through to 3, does committee agree? Thank you. Member for Kam Lake.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 65 be amended by adding the following after clause 3:
(3.1) This act is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a standard nonderogation clause. You can find it in other pieces of legislation. I think that this is a good idea. I'm happy to support this. And going forward, we should always consider including these in bills. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.
Carried
Clause 3.1, does committee agree? Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To the clause as amended, I move that Bill 65 be amended by deleting clause 3.1 and substituting the following:
3.1.(1) In this section, "land, resources and selfgovernment agreement" means
(a) any of the following agreements:
(i) the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Gwich'in, as represented by the Gwich'in Tribal Council, on April 22, 1992, as amended,
(ii) the Inuvialuit Final Agreement entered into between the Inuvialuit of the Inuvialuit settlement region and the Government of Canada on June 5, 1984, as amended,
(iii) the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Dene of Colville Lake, Deline, Fort Good Hope and Fort Norman and the Metis of Fort Good Hope, Fort Norman and Norman Wells, as represented by the Sahtu Tribal Council, on September 6, 1993, as amended,
(iv) the Land Claims and SelfGovernment Agreement among the Tlicho and the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, signed on August 25, 2003, as amended,
(v) the Deline Final SelfGovernment Agreement among the Deline First Nation Band and the Deline Land Corporation, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada dated February 18, 2015, as amended;
(b) any legally binding agreement intended to be a treaty under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, concluded between an Indigenous Government or Organization, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada; or
(c) any prescribed legally binding agreement.
(2) This act is to be interpreted. In a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
(3) An action or thing authorized by this act must be carried out in accordance with any applicable land, resources and selfgovernment agreement.
(4) If there is a conflict or an inconsistency between a provision of this act or the regulations and a provision of a land, resources and selfgovernment agreement or legislation approving, giving effect to and declaring valid a land, resources and selfgovernment agreement, the provision of the land, resources and selfgovernment agreement or legislation prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I just want to understand. I believe this language comes from is repeated in at least a couple of other pieces of GNWT legislation. And can I ask the law clerk to confirm that for me, please.
