Evidence of meeting #54 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
They include the Izok Lake project, which I just referenced. We have the Meliadine gold mine, and the Meadowbank gold mine in Baker Lake. Meliadine is also Agnico-Eagle Inc. The Meliadine project is north of their Meadowbank operation. That will primarily benefit Rankin Inlet. Then we have the Back River, Hackett River, and Roche Bay projects. They're all in the Kitikmeot region, which is in western Nunavut. I already talked about Mary River on Baffin Island.
These are game-changers for that territory, but that's not to say we don't have similar potential in our other two territories. What's actually happening in Yukon is very impressive. That's not in the future; they're already there in terms of high growth rates and high demand for miners and prospectors and others, jobs, economic development, and long-term prosperity.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Minister.
Ms. Bennett, we'll turn now to you, for seven minutes.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Minister, thank you for being so flexible after the craziness of the committee and the votes.
As we've said before, I think members of the committee were a little surprised to see the number of amendments coming from NTI after a decade of consultation. It seems, from the previous panel, that it isn't only a matter of the preferred language of the drafters at the Department of Justice. It's actually about how you stay in keeping with the Nunavut agreement. There are some issues that are really about process. There is obviously the amendment with respect to clause 39, which is actually about money. The federal government is responsible for funding the commission and the board.
The submission from the Planning Commission said, “to be successful with our organizational transition and the ongoing implementation...additional human and financial resources will be required”.
I want to know your take on the amendments. Is the government prepared to accept the amendments proposed by NTI?
Again, what provisions have been made for the request for almost $3 million to prepare and implement the new legal requirements and almost $2 million in core funding for ongoing implementation?
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Those are all good questions.
In terms of the funding, we've had to top up the northern boards, based on the level of activity, because there has been an increased level of activity, particularly in Nunavut. We know that this legislation will also bring new demands. We're looking at about an additional $300,000 per year to set up the Nunavut surface rights.
You're right. The other boards are looking at a greater level of activity. We know that their needs are greater, and we'll be negotiating with them in terms of meeting their needs. If we were saying that there was no funding coming, that would be an issue, but we're not saying that. There will obviously be a need for more funding.
In terms of the amendments brought forward by NTI, we've gone through a 10-year process to get the legislation where it is today. We had the Nunavut Legislative Working Group, which included NTI. There were multiple drafts of the legislation. There are sections of the legislation based on NTI input. Actually, some of the things I highlighted were brought to us from NTI.
Nobody, including industry, got everything they wanted in this legislation, because there are obviously some competing interests. When we had a complete legislative package that basically everybody could sign onto, we knew at that time that NTI would still pursue some further changes through the parliamentary process.
We believe that we have a good piece of legislation that meets the needs.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
If the Nunavut planning and project assessment act prevails in areas of conflict, how do you square that with the fact that—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
That's a good question too. Is there a conflict between the bill and the land claim agreement? We do not believe there is any conflict between the bill and the land claim agreement.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
How do you deal with the fact that NTI thinks there is? Is this another see you in court situation?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
No. I don't believe it's there at all.
To finish my answer, though, the land claim agreement would prevail if there were a difference between the bill and the land claim agreement. I do not believe that any of the requests are for things that are substantive.
One of the rationales and objections in terms of the legislation is simply that the NTI has not had an opportunity to review the French-language version to compare with their land claim agreement. Well, it's our job to make sure that the French version and the English version reflect exactly the same thing. We don't think that's a substantive concern.
Stephen, was there anything you wanted to add?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
The narrow definition of “departments and agencies” seemed to be the issue, in terms of how you plan or how you approve a park, whether it has to go to cabinet or not.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, I can answer the member's question.
Regarding the requirement that NTI was speaking of, for cabinet to be involved in implementing the land use plan, it's our interpretation that the land claim itself restricts that implementation responsibility to departments and agencies in its language. We have a difference of opinion as to the scope of that particular obligation in the land claim agreement. Our view is that it doesn't capture cabinet as being caught by the obligation to implement the land use plan that's approved by the Governor in Council.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
It does not.
We also do not see the creation of parks or marine conservation areas as necessary requirements of a land use plan. There are other provisions in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that deal with the establishment of marine conservation areas and parks. They are subject to the land use planning process, but we don't see them as being necessarily requirements of a land use plan. We have a little difference of opinion on that.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much, Ms. Bennett.
We'll have to turn to Mr. Seeback now, for seven minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, it's great to see you here today. I want to change the channel, but also pick up on what you had talked about, jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. I know my colleagues across the way love that term. They want me to say it a few more times, I think.
In talking about the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, how do you see that as being a driver of jobs and growth in the Northwest Territories?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
The surface rights board has the potential to improve timely access to surface and subsurface resources, as well as increase the predictability and consistency of the resource management regime. Setting up the board creates a single, clear, balanced, and fair dispute settlement mechanism for access disputes for all of the Northwest Territories. The board will not grant mineral or oil and gas rights, but it will make orders related to terms and conditions, and compensation related to access between holders of surface or subsurface rights and the owner or occupant of the surface when an agreement cannot be reached through negotiation.
It's going to bring certainty to the access regime. We see it as a board of last resort that will almost never be asked to do anything, if the historical record continues. We've had arbitration processes in place and we've had a surface rights board in Yukon. It has been asked to do very little over its time. The mere fact that it's there increases investor confidence and certainty and provides a settlement mechanism that is important to the process.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
That interestingly leads me into another question that I wanted to ask you. How many times has the interim arbitration process actually been used in the Northwest Territories?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Since 2006 the arbitration boards and panels have actually made zero decisions with respect to access disputes. The Saulteau arbitration panel received one application during this time, which was dropped and never proceeded to arbitration. As I say, it's viewed as an important board that sends a signal, but it probably won't be asked to do very much, although as our level of activity increases, who knows for sure?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
We hear a lot about consultation, and certainly we've heard that today a number of times. When you talk about the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, what type of consultation took place? How extensive was the consultation with respect to this portion of the bill? Could you describe that for the committee?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
In respect to the bill, the consultations in NWT began in 2010 with information sessions, distribution of the draft bill, and consultation sessions. Comments were received, and accommodation measures were incorporated into the draft bill. This process was repeated on a second and third draft of the legislation in 2011, and again in 2012.
As I mentioned earlier, over 35 consultation sessions were held with aboriginal groups and governments, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and industry organizations. All comments received were responded to in writing with an explanation of any changes and a demonstration of what accommodation measures were incorporated. I think Stephen Traynor already described all that.
That pretty much summarizes it. I think it was a very comprehensive process. It was certainly different in NWT from what it was in Nunavut which was actually a much longer process.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
It certainly sounds as though there's extensive consultation.
With respect to the legislation, why do we need this legislation at this particular moment?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
From the beginning, the access dispute resolution processes in the land claim agreements were intended only as interim processes. Once the surface rights board is established, this will provide a single mechanism to resolve disputes for the entire Northwest Territories. This has the potential to improve timely access to surface and subsurface resources, as well as increase the predictability and consistency of the northern regime.
We've twice before attempted to create a surface rights bill, once in the early 1990s during negotiations on the Gwich'in and Saulteau comprehensive land claim agreements, and once again in 2004. These bills were never completed due to competing priorities, so that's what led to the start-up again in 2010, which was at the same time as the announcement of the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, and that was in May 2010.
