Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2013

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Give me an example.

[Nadim Kara]

Our two associations have spoken about this in detail, and we've decided our message would be that a minor variant is best left to be determined under the applicable land use plan.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Could anyone give me a definition of a minor variance?

[Nadim Kara]

I'll defer to the NPC.

[Adrian Boyd]

A minor variance is a small change to existing rules in the land use plan. The draft land use plan must show you where you are eligible for a minor variance. Right now our draft plan has a setback from major road corridors of 30 metres, and you are able to reduce that. We have a 100-metre setback from potential alternative energy sites; you may be able to reduce that. That's where we're at right now with it.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

That's the definition of minor variance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay. Thanks so much.

We'll turn to Mr. Bevington now for his final questions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I was glad, Mr. Kara, with your presentation on unsettled land claims, but it's not evident anywhere in this document that this is of major concern in the Northwest Territories. If you consider that in the regions where there are settled land claims, where we have existing mines, things are working out well. In the Sahtu, where we have a large amount of oil and gas exploration, things are working out pretty well.

If you go into the Dehcho, and you go to the border between B.C. and the Northwest Territories, you'll see that the shale gas comes right up to the border and all the development stops, so in areas where there are unsettled claims, yes, we do have a problem: we need to settle the claims. It's not a problem of our regulatory system, it's a problem with the unsettled claims, so I wish you guys would put more effort into lobbying this government to settle the claims, rather than spending all this time over regulatory issues. If we start messing with the regulatory system much more than we already have, we're going to create uncertainty as well.

I've heard from both areas of unsettled claims where this surface rights board.... If there's going to be some action in the unsettled areas, there are going to be legal consequences to that. Those groups are manning up on that side.

We also have the situation in Yukon, where the free entry system was taken up in court.

Don't you think that really the prime issue in the Northwest Territories is settling land claims? Would you agree with that?

Anybody who wants to can answer. I'm concerned about it. I think the direction that's been taken here is a bit wrong.

[Pierre Gratton]

I would agree that settling of land claims is a major issue. Our industry has said this time and again, though, that there's nothing.... We don't have any role. This is a government-to-government negotiation, and we have no role to play in the settling of land claims, but we have said for as long as I can remember that the settling of land claims is one of the most important things that governments can do to provide certainty on the land base, so I would agree with you.

The Akaitcho is a case in point. It's highly prospective, and it's one of the sources of uncertainty in the Northwest Territories.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, and I'd appreciate it if that would show up in your documents as well, because I think that part of the discussion needs to be said.

[Rick Meyers]

If I could add to Pierre's comment, coming out of each land claim settlement there have been new boards created. Altogether we have something like 17 boards in the Northwest Territories right now, including the four water boards plus the other boards and what's in the Inuvialuit region.

If you add two more land claims, do you get that many more boards coming out of those settlements? There has to be some modernization, if you like, of the framework. It doesn't reduce the amount of participation by aboriginal groups, and certainly that would come out of the agreements that would be struck between the government and the aboriginal communities.

Settling the land claims is obviously very important, but there has to be a more streamlined framework at the end of those settlements.

[Pierre Gratton]

I think the issue of capacity and having enough qualified people to run the boards and agencies in a territory that has a population of about 50,000 is a challenge to begin with. There are probably more board members per capita in the Northwest Territories than anywhere else in the country, so it is an issue.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

There's more land and resources per capita than anywhere else in the country.

[Pierre Gratton]

To Rick's point, we're not suggesting in any way that the level of oversight or the level of scrutiny of resource development projects be diminished; it's a question of how it is managed and how it is regulated. I think there's a potential risk there; there are so many boards and agencies.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Quickly—and I'm sorry I haven't focused on your issues—the NIRB asked for participant funding to be built into the act. That's one of the things that I see as very important. Do you consider that would be a useful addition to this act?

[Sharon Ehaloak]

The amendment with funding would be useful on both fronts, both to the commission and to NIRB.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You mean participant funding.

[Sharon Ehaloak]

Yes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

In that way, people in Nunavut could afford to take the time to participate in these decision-making processes.

[Sharon Ehaloak]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We turn now to Ms. Ambler for five minutes for the final questions.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions today are for the Nunavut Planning Commission.

Paul, Sharon, and Adrian, this bill establishes the Inuit as a signatory to the land use plans. From your perspective, can you explain to the committee the significance of this? Including the Inuit is really not a specific requirement of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; can you tell us why this is an important part of the bill?

[Paul Quassa]

I believe it is important because, again, the signatories of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are both governments and the Inuit of Nunavut, represented by NTI. We fully support that there is a need for the Inuit role in being signatory to this.

[Sharon Ehaloak]

To be very clear, all landowners—that includes the NTI, the federal government, and the territorial government—are required to follow the land use plan, and therefore NTI should be one of the signatories signing off. Respectfully, the land claims agreement, which Mr. Quassa here signed with the federal government, is legally binding and represents the interests of Inuit.

I would ask Mr. Boyd for one last comment.

[Adrian Boyd]

The land use plan applies to all land, including Inuit-owned lands, so it's very important that the landowner be involved in the approval process of the land use plan.