Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2012

[Richard Spaulding]

The initial approval of a land use plan requires the agreement of the designated Inuit organization and the full federal and territorial cabinets. Once that's done, a land use plan can be put forward for amendment. The process then is a similar role for the designated Inuit organization. The federal and territorial ministers rather than full cabinets have to approve before the amendment comes into effect.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

There's no regular review process every five or ten years?

[Richard Spaulding]

It is within the power of the commission to conduct reviews. There's not a lot by way of mandatory detail in the bill as to when the commission must act. The question might be followed up with the people who come after us. They may have more detail on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

That brings us to the end of the allotted time for questions. We appreciate your testimony today and your willingness to answer the questions. They were comprehensive questions and answers, and we thank you for that.

We also want to thank the students for joining us today. This is an important step in the legislative process, and we certainly appreciate the interest that is expressed by having younger people here as well.

We also want to thank our committee witnesses for being here and making their time available.

We'll hear from the minister next.

We'll suspend the meeting, colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we'll call the meeting back to order. I ask that committee members return to the table as we invite the minister to join us as well.

We have undertaken to have this meeting for some time. Minister, thank you for being patient with us as we rescheduled and made changes to our schedule. We appreciate your willingness to be flexible with us and to come back in less than a week. Thanks so much for joining us.

Colleagues, I want to make note of the fact that it is our practice to have these meetings in rooms where they can be televised. Unfortunately, because of a number of things, that didn't happen, but I do want to recognize, as chair, that it is certainly the practice we want to undertake going forward. We'll just make sure that happens next time, maybe when we have a little better schedule planning.

Again, thank you, Minister, for being here and for being willing to be flexible with our schedule.

We'll turn it over to you now on our ongoing study of Bill C-47 for which, Minister, you have agreed to appear and bring testimony. Certainly we appreciate that. We'll turn it over to you for 10 minutes and then we'll turn to committee members for questions.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much once again.

As you all know, Canada's north is home to world-class reserves of natural resources representing tremendous economic opportunities for northerners and for all Canadians. Since forming government in 2006 our government has consistently demonstrated its commitment to equipping northerners with the tools they need to take advantage of those opportunities. I cannot emphasize enough how important Bill C-47 will be in allowing northerners to unlock these opportunities. Bill C-47 fulfills the Government of Canada's last legislative obligations flowing from negotiated land claims in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, and proposes mechanisms to improve regulatory processes, encourage investment, and allow resources to be developed in a sustainable manner. This will lead to jobs and benefits for future generations of Canadians.

I understand my officials were here on Monday last week to speak to some of the technical elements of Bill C-47, but their appearance was cut short due to votes. They're here again with me today and can answer some of your more technical questions. I understand they'll be coming again before committee soon.

The first part of this bill is the Nunavut planning and project assessment act. This bill sets out clear, consistent, reliable, regulatory processes that the people of Nunavut can use to manage development of their land and resources that will promote economic development by boosting investor confidence. Not only does this bill implement Canada's legislative obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, it also fills existing gaps in the Nunavut regime for project approval. These improvements are not just necessary, they are urgent. They are needed in order to put in place a state-of-the-art planning and assessment regime to meet the surging tide of resource development opportunity in Nunavut.

The fact that the bill establishes the Nunavut Planning Commission as the single entry for project proponents will provide the clarity and certainty that has been called for and supported in various other jurisdictions across Canada, and will no doubt prove to be equally successful in Nunavut. For example, the bill assigns clear roles and responsibilities to the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, departments and agencies, responsible ministers, regulatory authorities, and project proponents. It allows the development and implementation of critical timelines for key decision points in the process, ensures that all parties to the process do not act until the appropriate approvals have been received, and establishes the critical inspection, enforcement, and monitoring regimes to backstop all decisions taken.

Mr. Chairman, there have been questions raised in the House of Commons about the adequacy of our consultations on this bill. Work on the Nunavut planning and project assessment act began in 2002, and the resulting bill before you today reflects almost a decade of negotiation and close consultation. This bill is a direct result of the government's strong partnership with the Government of Nunavut and Inuit leadership, as well as extensive consultation with the resource industries that will be affected. This bill, produced in partnership, includes valuable input from the Nunavut Legislative Working Group, a group of representatives from the federal government, the Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

Representatives from the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board also acted as advisers. Their technical expertise and experience were great assets to the working group.

Representatives of the mining and oil and gas industries also provided useful suggestions related to maximizing regulatory efficiency and avoiding duplication, achieving clarity and certainty through specific timelines, and consolidating roles and responsibilities among institutions of government.

Other groups raised additional concerns. Certain roles and responsibilities outlined in the draft bill required further clarification; monitoring and enforcement provisions needed to be strengthened; and questions over the bill's application to development projects that cross geographic boundaries and political jurisdictions called for further clarity.

I'm proud to say that these consultations have resulted in legislation that will truly serve the needs of the people of Nunavut today and in the future.

The second part of Bill C-47 will establish the Northwest Territories surface rights board. This fulfills obligations in the Northwest Territories under the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement. Both agreements refer specifically to the need for a surface rights board.

The establishment of the board is also consistent with the terms and the spirit of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, the other two comprehensive land claims in the Northwest Territories. The Tlicho agreement allows for the establishment of a surface rights board. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement specifies that any interim measures related to access across Inuvialuit lands to reach adjacent lands will be replaced when a law of general application, such as this bill, is enacted.

The board will, on application, make orders related to terms, conditions, and compensation only where they have been requested to do so and only after such rights have been previously issued. In so doing, this board will contribute to greater certainty and predictability for long-term economic growth and job creation in the territory.

I want to emphasize that this board does not, nor will it ever, issue any kind of right to surface or subsurface resources. To be absolutely clear, this board does not have any jurisdiction in the realm of resource development decision-making. This board does one thing only: if asked by one or both of the parties, it will settle disputes about access to land.

Consultations on the development of the Northwest Territories surface rights board act were also extensive. As I mentioned earlier, this bill responds to our last legislative obligation from the Gwich'in and Sahtu land claim agreements, and completes the regulatory regime that was originally envisioned in the Northwest Territories land claim agreements.

In total, over 35 consultation sessions were held with 13 aboriginal groups and governments, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and industry organizations. These sessions included groups within and outside settled land claims in the Northwest Territories, and groups outside of the Northwest Territories with transboundary claims. That was the comprehensive consultation, negotiation, and collaboration that went into developing the bill. That was the degree of partnership that went into putting together this very important legislation.

The bill before this committee today is a product that reflects the work, the opinions, and the positions of many interests and groups across two territories. All sides contributed to produce a bill that meets the needs of the people of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

As you can see, Bill C-47 responds to a chorus of other groups calling for action. Territorial governments have asked for better coordination and clearly defined time periods for project reviews. Resource companies have urged us to make the review process more streamlined and predictable. All Canadians want to make sure that promising opportunities will no longer be delayed or lost due to complex, unpredictable, and time-consuming regulatory processes. Bill C-47 will help make this a reality.

Thank you, Chair.

I look forward to the committee's review, and my officials and I will be pleased to respond to any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll turn now to Mr. Bevington for the first seven minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. It's good to hear you on this particular bill.

I'm going to focus mostly on the surface rights board.

Within the consultation with the aboriginal groups which you talked about, were those also the treaty entitlement groups that have had settlements under treaty entitlement? Have you had consultations with Salt River First Nation and Katlodeeche First Nation?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

My understanding, Dennis, is that the answer is yes.

Perhaps someone could provide further detail.

[Camille Vézina, Manager, Legislation and Policy, Resource Policy and Programs Directorate, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I can add further detail. I can enunciate which of the groups we actually consulted with.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Could you do that quickly?

[Camille Vézina]

Yes. They were the Acho Dene Koe First Nation, the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Tribal Corporation, the Athabasca Denesuline, the Dehcho First Nation, the Dene Tha' First Nation, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Katlodeeche First Nation, the Manitoba Denesuline, the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun, the NWT Métis Nation, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, and the Tlicho Government.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Under most of the legal opinions in Canada, it's consultation and accommodation. In the legislative summary, you say the aboriginal signatories to the relevant land claims agreements—the Tlicho, Sahtu, Gwich'in—had not yet released statements commenting on the proposed legislation.

If you're looking at accommodation and they haven't spoken to you with their point of view on this legislation, how can that be accommodation?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Well, Dennis, I've met with the major land claims settlement groups on more than one occasion on a personal level, and there have been other meetings. We're not doing anything that impinges on section 35 rights, in any way. We're being quite careful about all of that, so I'm not sure what your real concern is.

We have made the request. We've asked for input. I believe there has been general agreement that the direction we're heading in is one that will assist in economic development and other measures that will improve the social well-being of the NWT.

Tom, you seem to want to weigh in.

[Tom Isaac, Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice]

I would just say that with regard to the consultation process that was undertaken with the first nations you mentioned, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho, it is our view that those were iterative processes and those first nations were provided with an opportunity to present their views in respect of—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

But your document here, which comes from our committee, says they had not yet released statements. There was no formal release of any statement.

Is that correct, or is this document wrong?

[Stephen Traynor, Director, Resource Policy and Programs Directorate, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I can answer that.

We do have statements from the Tlicho that they were very happy with the process itself during meetings.

There was extensive and meaningful consultation. As you rightly put it, there is always accommodation, and that's why it did take us so long to prepare this bill. We made sure we responded to each organization that provided both comments and meetings, or also provided written comments on the bill. We made sure that each organization was written to and provided with an explanation as to how we accommodated their concerns on each part of the consultation process.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The unsettled claims area is where we're going to see the most opposition to this bill in the Northwest Territories, quite clearly. That's coming, and I've been told by chiefs across the north who come from the unsettled areas, including Katlodeeche and Salt River first nations, that they do not feel this bill represents their interests. These are unsettled areas.

Why were those unsettled areas not reserved for future dates within the legislation, so that as those comprehensive claims in some areas were finalized—and the other claims—they could be added in? You've taken the approach that it's all the same in the Northwest Territories, that everyone agrees with this, and that we can go ahead with legislation prior to a final settlement in the claims areas.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I guess you can portray that in different ways, but Dennis, we have engaged with the Dehcho, the Akaitcho, and with the other groups you referred to.

Yes, we want to have a regime north of 60. We have three Yukon first nations that are not under the umbrella of a final agreement there as well, but that's not to say we don't want or need a comprehensive agreement for each of the three territories to bring investor certainty and efficiencies into decision-making.

As I've said before, the NWT, which is the territory you're primarily making reference to, has real issues in terms of attracting exploration, further investment in the mining sector, and other investments, until we get clarity as to the environmental assessment process. To deny that is to deny the real statistics that are out there, which is that the NWT is struggling compared with the other two territories.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll turn to Mr. Rickford for seven minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the minister and the officials for joining us today in what so far has been a very positive discussion about this piece of legislation.

I was looking through my notes. So far we've heard things like certainty, predictability, clarity, streamlining, single point of entry, one-stop shop, and clear guidelines. These are the kinds of descriptors that have been used so far by our witnesses, including our friends from NTI today.

Minister, it appears the bill contains a number of improvements that were laid out in the agreement. I'm wondering if you could cite specific examples of that, any definitions, or what the roles of different proponents would be under this legislation. Then I'll segue into a question about economic development.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of definitions, there are a number of improvements to the process described in the agreement.

For example, the definition of “project” has been clarified. It establishes the Nunavut Planning Commission as the single entry point for all project proposals. It clarifies the duty of all government departments, including those with regulatory duties, to implement their activities in accordance with land use plans. It affirms the power of governments and Inuit organizations to nominate members to the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission.

It makes it possible for territorial and federal governments and Inuit organizations to manage northern resources and lands wisely. It provides legal certainty and predictability for resource managers. And as I mentioned a couple of times, it fulfills our legislative obligations under the land claims agreements by legislating roles and responsibilities for the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board and clearly defining the powers, duties, and functions of those bodies.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

That's a good starting point, because my next question has to do with economic development, specifically in Nunavut. I'm going to ask you shortly to give some specific projects that are on the horizon.

I understand that this proposed legislation would support Nunavut's economic development by and large, as it encourages the development of land use plans. That seems to be one of the centrepieces to this that considers economic opportunities, land use rights, and as we debated in the House just last week, an interest in important regulations to balance environmental protection at the same time. It seems to me we have these great interests at the forefront, and stakeholders heartily invested in the process.

I'm wondering if you could give some specific examples of what this bill would do in view of these more clearly defined roles, powers, and functions of the authorities in all parties to the agreement.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

The legislation is clearly tilted towards supporting Nunavut's economic development by encouraging the development of land use plans that consider economic opportunities and land user rates and interests.

The bill clearly defines the roles, powers, functions, and authorities of all parties. It addresses the role of the Inuit. It streamlines approvals, especially for smaller projects. It provides opportunity for transboundary projects to be reviewed by joint panels. It establishes new and more effective enforcement tools to ensure developers follow the terms and conditions set out by the board. It provides industry with a clear and transparent process, making investment much more attractive. It establishes timelines to improve efficiency and predictability of the regulatory regime. I think overall it provides a good investment climate by providing a predictable process.

Where we're at now is that we have a bill that supports our northern strategy in terms of fostering economic development. This will provide investor confidence for such projects as the Izok corridor project, which is a significant zinc and copper project in western Nunavut.

As you know, the Mary River project is proceeding well. Although this legislation's not in place, we tried to meet the spirit and intent of this legislation on such things as timelines. It's a good test drive to see if we can make it work, and so far so good.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I have less than a minute left, Mr. Minister—