Bill C-47 (Historical)

Northern Jobs and Growth Act

An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, which implements certain provisions of Articles 10 to 12 of the land claims agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada that was ratified, given effect and declared valid by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, which came into force on July 9, 1993.
Part 2 enacts the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act, which implements provisions of certain land claim agreements. In particular, that Act establishes the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board, whose purpose is to resolve matters in dispute relating to terms and conditions of access to lands and waters in the Northwest Territories and the compensation to be paid in respect of that access.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

When the Government of Nunavut came before us last week, they didn't propose any amendments to the part of the bill that applies to Nunavut. You've clearly done a substantial amount of work on amendments. In your introduction you make it clear that this is part of ensuring that the language in this new bill, Bill C-47, is consistent with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

If you were to prioritize, are there particular amendments you've proposed that you think are essential to be included in the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we are going to call the meeting to order. This is the 54th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue our study on Bill C-47.

For our first hour, colleagues, we have representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. We'll hear from them, as is our usual practice, and then we'll have questions.

We will turn it over to Ms. Hanson for an opening statement. You are joined by Mr. Merritt and Mr. Spaulding. Thanks for coming. We appreciate your willingness to be here and to share your thoughts with regard to the bill. We'll turn it over to you and then we'll have some questions for you.

Arctic Council

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, our commitment to the north is undeniable and unprecedented. We have made investments in things such as northern health care, investments in infrastructure, investments in tourism, investments in business, and the list goes on.

Bill C-47 is at committee right now. It represents one of the best opportunities to expand economic development for the north, in the north, while balancing the interests of environmental protection.

I would ask the member for Western Arctic this. Yesterday, he was asked to explain why he voted against his constituents' wishes, for example, on the Inuvik-Tuk highway, and he responded, “I do not really have to answer any of those things”.

I think he will soon, if not by—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

On the feedback from what I referred to earlier in my questioning, the feedback from the other stakeholders, am I to assume, then, that there was a high degree of comfort with the process and what we arrived at in terms of the NUPPA component of Bill C-47?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

As you said, David, this was a tripartite process in a technical sense, although there were other stakeholders who played a major role, certainly in the consultation process, to be able to arrive at a comprehensive agreement in the form of NUPPA, which is one component of Bill C-47. It strikes me, then, that in order for us to arrive at where we are today in terms of bringing this legislation forward, all parties, particularly the government and, as you mentioned, NTI, would need to have some degree of satisfaction, if not complete satisfaction, with this legislation moving forward.

Your sense from going through that process, David...and certainly, again, Christopher, this is an invitation for you to comment on that process, not just in terms of consultation, but in terms of a feeling that at this point all parties—and certainly the three that would form the tripartite, as you said, David—feel comfortable with where we're at in order to move forward with this comprehensive piece of legislation.

[David Akeeagok, Deputy Minister of the Environment, Chief Negociator, Devolution, Government of Nunavut, Government of Nunavut]

[Witness speaks in Inuktitut]

Good afternoon. As the chair mentioned, my name is David Akeeagok, and I am the deputy minister of the Department of Environment in the Government of Nunavut. On behalf of Premier Aariak, I would like to thank the committee for your invitation to the premier to appear before you. Premier Aariak sends her regrets. I am appearing on her behalf.

I am appearing to speak in support of part 1 of the bill, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. As Premier Aariak has noted, the bill marks an important milestone in creating an effective regime for Inuit and the government to manage resource development in Nunavut together.

The bill fulfills a major commitment Canada made under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In 1993, the Inuit of Nunavut and Canada signed the largest land claims agreement in the country. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires that new federal legislation be created to set forth the powers and functions of the resource management boards created under the agreement. In this case, they are the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission. These two boards play an essential role in land and resource management in Nunavut. They are composed of members appointed or nominated by Inuit as well as by the territorial and federal governments. They have been in operation since 1996, under the authority and powers granted to them under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.

Between 2002 and late 2009, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated worked together to complete the federal legislation that would set out clear roles for the boards. The Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board also participated in that work. I would like to acknowledge the hard work officials from the Government of Nunavut, the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Nunavut Tunngavik, and the two boards have put into the development of this bill.

The working group was guided by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as well as by the experience of drafting similar legislation in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The working group also benefited from the work the board, Inuit, and the government have been doing since 1996.

The Government of Nunavut believes this bill will make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut. Specifically, the Nunavut section of this bill will make the work of the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission stronger by backing it up with solid federal legislation. It will also create a clear regulatory process with predictable timelines.

The bill will integrate the process of approving project proposals by the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board. The bill establishes a one-window approach to project approval, with the Nunavut Planning Commission as the entry point for all project approvals. The bill establishes three-party approval of the land use plan by Inuit, Canada, and the Government of Nunavut.

The bill further clarifies the role of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in Nunavut. This will eliminate the overlap of jurisdictions, which has caused confusion and delay elsewhere in Canada. The bill will make it clear which projects are subject to assessment. It will also set out in a schedule all government authorizations that must comply with the requirements of the bill before being finalized.

The bill sets out the regulatory approval process in a clear manner and organizes the processes chronologically.

The bill allows for enforcement of land use plans and project certifications on Inuit-owned lands, crown lands, and commissioner lands.

The bill requires that public hearings be conducted in Inuktitut if requested by a member, proponent, or intervenor.

The bill includes specific directions to regulators to include in their permits applicable terms and conditions of the land use plans and project assessment certificates.

The bill includes specific timelines for regulators and ministers to make decisions. This will bring certainty and predictability to Nunavummiut, to industry, and to other stakeholders.

Finally, the bill provides for offence provisions in relation to land use plans and project certification.

As the committee can see, this is an important piece of legislation for the north, and it will contribute to the economic development of Nunavut.

Additionally, as members of this committee may know, the Government of Nunavut is currently engaged in devolution discussions to transfer jurisdiction over land and resources from the federal government to the Government of Nunavut. A devolution agreement has been concluded with the Yukon, and an agreement in principle has been reached with the Northwest Territories.

An effective regulatory system, which Bill C-47 will create, is a key component of devolution. The Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act will assist in creating a transparent and effective regulatory system in Nunavut. It will allow the Government of Nunavut to take on management of lands and resources in a seamless way without disruption to resource development in Nunavut.

This legislation is an important achievement by the federal and territorial governments and Inuit to strengthen Nunavut's institutions and enable Nunavummiut to advance along the path towards greater self-reliance.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I have in terms of opening remarks. I would be happy to take questions from committee members.

Quyanainni.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to provide an overview of the operation of part 2 of Bill C-47, the proposed Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act. This part is as important for what it doesn't do as for what it does, as we'll see.

As Mr. Traynor noted, establishing the board fulfills the Government of Canada's obligations under the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Metis 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 act, is enacted.

Once established, the surface rights board will provide a single mechanism to resolve access disputes for the entire Northwest Territories.

It must be iterated that the surface rights board is being established as a tool of last resort. Its real efficacy stems from its mere presence, which provides the impetus for parties to negotiate agreements themselves.

As stated in proposed section 9 of the act, the board will consist of no fewer than five and no more than nine members, plus five alternates, and all members and alternates will be appointed by the minister. There is no nomination process contemplated in the bill, as there is no requirement for nominations in the land claims agreements; however, that does not preclude the minister from making a call for nominations or individuals from writing to the minister suggesting a candidate for board membership.

In accordance with proposed section 13, while appointing members and alternate members, the minister is required to appoint members who are residents of the Northwest Territories. Also in accordance with that same section, when dealing with a dispute related to a specific settlement area, the panel hearing the dispute will be composed of a panel of three, at least one of whom will be a resident of the particular settlement area, as is required in the land claims agreements.

Further, when appointing members for particular settlement areas, the minister must appoint members who have considerable knowledge in respect of the lands, the environment, or aboriginal traditional knowledge relating to the settlement area, a requirement which was added as an accommodation measure.

What specifically will the new Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board do, Mr. Chairman? The board is authorized to resolve disputes between holders of surface or subsurface rights and the owner or occupant of surface lands when agreement on terms, conditions, and compensation for access cannot be reached by the parties in question. The board will have jurisdiction to resolve access disputes throughout the Northwest Territories.

In accordance with proposed sections 56 and 71, when setting out the terms and conditions, the board would consider matters such as times when the right of access may be exercised, the location and route of access, the number of individuals who may exercise the right of access, activities that may be carried out, and equipment that may be used. The board also has the power to determine compensation for unforeseen damages that result from access, to award costs, and to periodically review or terminate access orders.

As indicated, the board will have jurisdiction over disputes that involve surface and subsurface rights. Surface rights are rights associated with land that relate to the ability of the owner or occupant to use and enjoy the land. Subsurface rights are typically mineral or oil and gas rights, often held by the crown, which are granted to third parties through other acts of Parliament.

Usually landowners enjoy surface rights but do not own subsurface rights. Landowners or third parties can obtain mineral rights or oil and gas rights from the crown through an act of Parliament, such as the Territorial Lands Act or the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. When the crown grants subsurface rights to a mining company, for instance, these rights include a right of access to the land to exercise the mineral rights.

In some cases, however, land claim agreements establish ownership of surface and subsurface rights. In these cases, aboriginal groups with settled claims may have full ownership, both surface and subsurface, of specific portions of land in their settlement areas.

The board has no jurisdiction in cases in which aboriginal groups enjoy ownership of surface and subsurface rights, except to resolve disputes related to access across those lands for commercial purposes. The board does, however, have jurisdiction in cases in which an aboriginal group has ownership of surface rights but the crown holds the rights to the subsurface. In these cases, the board replaces the interim arbitration measures related to access in the four land claim agreements.

I want to ensure that I have been very clear and that there is no confusion: the board has no power to grant rights, whether mineral, oil, or gas rights.

The Canada Petroleum Resources Act sets out the process for issuing oil and gas rights throughout Canada, including the north.

Mining regulations in the Territorial Lands Act outline the process for staking mineral claims and establishing mineral rights. Regulations in that act also establish the Mining Recorder's Office, the body responsible for recording claims and issuing prospecting licences and permits.

The Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board will make access orders related only to terms, conditions, and compensation only after such rights have been issued, and only after an access agreement cannot be negotiated by the parties and one or both have made proper application to the board.

This leads me to how the board will deal with the applications it receives. As l've stated already, a proponent of resource development would have a right of access granted under an act of Parliament, such as the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. If the right of access is subject to consent of a landowner, such as a designated organization on aboriginal-owned land, the proponent must negotiate for access with the landowner as holder of surface rights.

If the two parties cannot reach an agreement after negotiations, either of them may apply to the board for an access order. The board will review the application to ensure that in accordance with board rules, the parties have attempted to resolve the matter in dispute by negotiation in good faith, and the application is within its jurisdiction. If the application is within its jurisdiction and negotiations between the two parties have been conducted or attempted in good faith, the board will be required to accept the application.

In accordance with proposed section 42, the board will convene a panel of three members to hear the application, unless the parties consent to a one-member panel. A one-member panel could be requested by the parties if an accelerated process is desired.

The panel will conduct a hearing and then issue an access order. The panel is required to take into account any factors and materials it considers relevant when it sets out terms, conditions, and compensation. When determining terms and conditions, the panel may include any that are appropriate to minimize damage to or the peaceful enjoyment of land.

With respect to compensation, the panel considers factors such as market value, loss of use, cultural attachment, effects on wildlife harvesting, damage, nuisance, and inconvenience.

After receiving an order, a proponent is able to exercise its right of access in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions set out in the order and any other requirements set out in other acts of Parliament or land claim agreements.

A party to an order is also permitted to apply to the board for a review. During the review, the board has the authority to amend an order in an appropriate manner if it determines that a material change in the facts or circumstances relating to the order has occurred.

Keep in mind that the board is the final decision-maker. No mechanism exists to enable parties to appeal an order. However, orders of the board may always be judicially reviewed by a court.

An order of the board may also be made an order of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories once a certified copy of it is filed with the court, making it enforceable in the same way an order of the court is.

That's how the specific provisions of Bill C-47 will apply in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Chairman.

I want to conclude by emphasizing that Bill C-47 will not create or take away any rights or create an additional arbitration process. It will simply replace arbitration measures related to access that were intended as interim measures in land claim agreements. It will provide a single board and a well-defined process for resolving access disputes in the Northwest Territories. Bill C-47 is consistent with the applicable land claim agreements, and the process it establishes will be, and will be perceived as, fair and equitable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Janice Traynor, Environmental Policy Analyst, Environmental Policies and Studies, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to provide an overview of part 1 of the Northern Jobs and Growth Act today, the proposed Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. This part sets out in federal statutes the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board and formally defines the powers, duties, and functions of these two boards. As Mr. Traynor pointed out, this bill meets a legislative obligation of the Government of Canada under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

You'll recall that this historic agreement, signed nearly 20 years ago between the federal government and the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area, enabled Parliament to create Nunavut as an official territory in 1999. The Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board have operated under the provisions of the agreement since 1996. What Bill C-47 does is provide greater detail and therefore increased certainty about the functions of these two bodies. Most notably, the bill provides for a one-window entry point for development projects in Nunavut.

Here's how the two boards under Bill C-47 work.

The Nunavut Planning Commission prepares land use plans that are to guide and direct resource use and development and provide for both the conservation and use of lands in the Nunavut settlement area. The commission consults on the development of the draft plan, reviews it with the public, and then submits it for approval to the governments of Canada and Nunavut and the Inuit. The plan is in effect once it has the approval of all three parties.

With respect to individual project proposals, all prospective resource development projects in Nunavut will enter the planning and review process through the Nunavut Planning Commission. Project proponents are responsible for determining whether their project's activity meets the definition of a project under the act. If proponents deem their projects to be subject to the act, the proponents submit their project proposals to the Nunavut Planning Commission. The commission then determines if a land use plan applies to the area in which the project is located. If so, the commission judges whether the project conforms to the plan. All project proposals prepared by proponents such as mining companies must conform to their respective land use plans before they can go any further in the review and approval process.

As long as the project conforms to any applicable land use plan, the commission verifies whether it is on a schedule of projects exempt from screening by the Nunavut Impact Review Board. If the project is exempt, the commission judges whether it has concerns about the project's cumulative effects in the region. The commission sends the project to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for screening if the commission has concerns about cumulative impacts or if the project is not exempt from screening. The commission can grant minor variances to projects that do not conform to land use plans, or proponents can seek a ministerial exemption from conforming to a land use plan.

The commission must complete its work on each project within 45 days. The 45-day clock begins, once again, once the Nunavut Impact Review Board begins its work to screen a project proposal. The Nunavut Impact Review Board screens project proposals to determine if a project requires a review due to potential adverse impacts caused by the proposed development or because of public concern. If the board deems that a public review is required, the relevant ministers must decide within 90 days if the review should be conducted by the board or by a federal panel chosen by the Minister of Environment. All federal panels include members nominated by Inuit and the Government of Nunavut.

After the Nunavut Impact Review Board conducts a public review and prepares the review report for a project, the relevant ministers must decide within 150 days whether a project should proceed and whether to accept, reject, or vary any terms and conditions recommended in the report. The relevant ministers, however, must decide within 90 days if a report is deficient and must go back to the board for further consideration.

If a federal panel conducts a review, the relevant ministers must decide within 240 days whether a project should proceed and whether to accept, reject, or vary any terms and conditions recommended in the report. Within this time period, the ministers must seek the approval of their decision from the Governor in Council if the project was sent to the federal panel because it involved a matter of national interest.

If the responsible minister's decision is positive, the boards must prepare, within 30 days, a project certificate that sets out the terms and conditions of the project. Federal and territorial regulators must then make sure the terms and conditions described in the certificate are implemented in permits and licences. Enforcement provisions help ensure these terms and conditions are respected, especially as they apply to protecting the environment.

As I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, several timelines exist at key decision points in the process. These timelines help speed the consideration of projects and improve predictability and certainty for investors without jeopardizing environmental protection. In addition, federal panels and institutions of neighbouring jurisdictions may jointly review projects that cross territorial boundaries.

The Nunavut Impact Review Board can also review projects situated outside the territory if these projects might have adverse effects within the Nunavut settlement area.

With respect to resource developments that are now under way, Bill C-47 ensures that these projects can transition seamlessly to this new process by empowering the Nunavut Planning Commission to use existing land use plans and take into consideration existing rights, and by the Nunavut Impact Review Board continuing its assessment of projects that are in the process when the act comes into force under the rules that were in place when the project proposal was submitted.

In walking the committee through the process, I hope I've shed some light on how Bill C-47 enshrines in law a transparent process that is easily understood by all participants, sets out fair rules for developers, and establishes timelines for our environmental assessment decisions that will result in the process not exceeding 24 months for the board and the relevant ministers to make their decisions.

To recap, the bill establishes a single-entry, one-project—one-assessment method that simplifies the regulatory process, improves the likelihood that reviews will be carried out expeditiously and transparently, and, we believe, makes it possible for Inuit, the territorial government, and the federal government to cooperate to manage resources and lands in Nunavut in a clear and predictable manner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

My name is Stephen Traynor, and I'm the director of resource policy and programs with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I had the distinct pleasure of directing the teams that put Bill C-47 together.

As you already know, Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, has two parts. Part 1 is the proposed Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, which responds to the government's obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act of 1993. Part 2 is the proposed Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and fulfills Canada's obligations under the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement in the Northwest Territories. Both of these acts were developed in consultation with the relevant aboriginal groups and governments in accordance with our legal obligations.

I have with me today the team leaders in charge of the preparation of these bills, Ms. Janice Traynor and Ms. Camille Vézina. Also accompanying us today is Mr. Tom Isaac, legal counsel.

With the committee's indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask each in turn to provide an overview of the operation of each part of the bill, an undertaking that might take about 10 minutes each.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I call this meeting to order.

This is the 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Colleagues, today we have the opportunity to hear from officials with regard to Bill C-47 for the first hour of discussion. Because of the truncated timeframes today, we have three opening statements, all of which are comprehensive, as is the nature of this bill. We will hear the opening statements, and then I believe these officials will return with the minister at our next meeting when the minister comes with regard to the bill because the minister is on deck for the next hour for supplementary estimates (B).

That's the way we'll operate, so we won't be asking questions. We will simply hear the opening statements and then we'll proceed in that way to keep us on track with our timeframe.

Today, colleagues, we have four officials: Ms. Vézina from Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as Janice Traynor and Stephen Traynor, and we have Tom Isaac from the Department of Justice.

We'll turn it over to you.

Stephen, we'll begin with you. As I said, you're off the hook in terms of questions today, but we'll have a couple of days to consider what we want to ask before we have you back, so it's a blessing and a curse.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Traynor.

Northern Jobs and Growth Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the ongoing challenge with land claims agreements and self-government agreements has been the continued lack of long-term funding, or when the windows come up when these agreements need to be reviewed, there is continual foot-dragging. That is one of the reasons that the Land Claims Coalition put forward the model policy that talks on a number of points about the importance of consistent funding.

I talked about the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the B.C. First Nations Education Act, and it is a really good example of something that has now been in place for six years and has not been adequately funded. The Nunavut land claims agreement has been in place for decades and it has taken this long to get this next phase of the agreement implemented through Bill C-47. Even with this, there still has not been that long-term commitment to funding. We simply cannot have the improvement in socio-economic status if we do not have those long-term commitments to funding.

Hopefully we will hear at committee, once we hear from the minister, that the government is committing to that kind of funding to move this next piece of legislation forward.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am continuing on with my comments on Bill C-47.

As I indicated at the outset of my speech, New Democrats support the bill going to committee at second reading for further review.

When I was interrupted, I was referring to the legislative summary that talked about the deputy minister of what was then Indian and Northern Affairs providing reassurances to aboriginal and northern affairs members that although implementation would add to the workload of certain agencies in Nunavut, including the Nunavut Impact Review Board, they would get the resources they needed. However, it was not made clear what funding would be dedicated for this purpose.

I want to go back and refer to testimony that was before the aboriginal affairs committee in May 2010. The Nunavut Impact Review Board, among others, came before the committee to outline some of its concerns generally about the operation of its organization in the north as well as specific reference to what was then Bill C-25.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the other side for the support in continuing to speak.

The review board indicated that the draft legislation would create the one-window approach that is currently lacking. However, this does not eliminate the need for the Nunavut institutions to continue to work together. Rather, it is increasingly important in preparation for the law coming into force.

Additional resources will be required for the boards to participate in this implementation planning and in equipping the organizations to meet new requirements and timelines.

It would be essential for the Nunavut Planning Commission, as a single window into the Nunavut regulatory regime, to access the expertise held within these organizations in order to fully understand the impact assessment and regulatory processes that occur.

I also want to discuss one of the most significant ongoing challenges facing the board, which are the delays in the appointment of board members. This delay can result in a loss of quorum. The boards rely on board members to make the decisions required to fulfill their respective mandates.

Further on, the executive director of the Nunavut Water Board was speaking and indicated that he wanted to speak about the board's funding constraints:

Given the vast territory, the obligation to hold hearings in communities most directly affected, working in three languages, and the limited capacity of people and communities to engage in the regulatory process, the cost of fulfilling the mandate of the boards is high.

Again, he was referencing the challenges with the amount of resources that were provided. He went on to say:

If economic development potential in the north is a key objective of the federal government, it is the board's view that equal measures to promote and support the regulatory regimes are required to effectively and efficiently fulfill the commitments made in the Nunavut land claims agreement.

He went on to talk about how important it is to make increased resources available to the Water Review Board, but also to other organizations as well:

Accordingly, the boards recommend a review of federal and territorial resources available and required to fulfill the NLCA functions and reduce barriers to development in the north.

As I mentioned earlier, there are not any assurances in this piece of legislation that there will be the resources available for Nunavut to actually undertake the implementation of this very important piece, and that is another reason why it is important to get the bill to committee quickly, because of course it was first introduced in 2010, and here we are two years later, and because of an election, the bill was not dealt with. Of course, we have been back here for well over a year and the bill could have been introduced months ago.

One of the reasons the Water Review Board is raising concerns around funding is that it has been the experience, when other pieces of legislation have been passed, when there has not been that commitment to funding, that those pieces of legislation actually languish.

I want to refer to Bill C-34 that was passed by the Parliament of Canada back in December 2006. Bill C-34 was the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act. FNESC, which has been an advocate, actively involved in implementing that piece of legislation, has recently written a letter to the former minister Jim Prentice, indicating to Mr. Prentice:

However, unilateral action by the Canadian government is now jeopardizing the education jurisdiction initiative in BC, including the legally binding agreements and supporting legislation. Specifically, we have been unable to reach resolution with the Government of Canada regarding reasonable funding for this initiative.

Here we have a piece of legislation that was passed in 2006. Here we are in 2012, and the initiative still is not being appropriately funded.

The Nunavut Impact Review Board is quite correct in raising concerns about the fact that adequate funding has not so far been talked about.

In the last couple of minutes I have left I want to raise some concerns, overall, with the speed of implementation of land claims agreements and some of the subsequent agreements that are so important for their effective functioning.

In the second universal periodic review that was submitted on October 9, 2012, to the United Nations Human Rights Council by the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, they have raised a number of concerns about Canada's foot-dragging on these matters. In this they outline first of all the importance of modern treaties and the fact that these modern treaties represent nation to nation and government to government relationships between aboriginal signatory and the Crown in right of Canada.

They go on to talk about the importance of this in terms of:

...[improving] social, cultural, political and economic well-being. At the same time, these agreements are intended to provide all signatories with a mutual foundation for the beneficial and sustainable development and use of Aboriginal peoples' traditional lands and resources.

They talk about the fact that:

The treaty rights arising from modern land claims...express the mutual desire of the Crown and Aboriginal peoples to reconcile through sharing the lands, resources and natural wealth of this subcontinent in a manner that is equitable and just, in contrast to the discriminatory and assimilationist approaches that have characterized their historical relations.

They talk about the honour of the Crown, and I will touch on a couple of the recommendations they made. First, they raised the issue of the fact that “...Nunavut, one of the Coalition's founding members...” had to file a claim “against the Government of Canada, concerning a litany of federal implementation failures in respect of the Nunavut Agreement...”.

They then state:

In June 2012, Mr. Justice Johnson of the Nunavut Court of Justice ruled in favour of the Inuit, in relation to one aspect of the suit, concerning the failure to develop an ecosystemic and socio-economic monitoring plan.

It goes on to say:

Mr....Johnson ordered the Government of Canada to disgorge the $14 million it had saved by not implementing the treaty obligation in a timely manner.

Later on in the submission to the Human Rights Council, as I had mentioned, they raised the issue about funding and the fact that funding has not been discussed, at least that we can tell, in Bill C-47.

The Land Claims Coalition has put forward a “Four-Ten Declaration and Model Implementation Policy”. In this four-ten declaration, it has indicated:

A federal commitment to achieve the broad objectives of modern treaties, as opposed to mere technical compliance with narrowly defined obligations. This must include, but not be limited to, ensuring adequate funding to achieve these objectives and obligations.

It also indicates:

There must be an independent implementation and review body.

That has often been a sticking point when we come to land claims and treaties.

The document further states:

On March 3, 2009, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition released a model national policy on land claims agreement implementation: “Honour, Spirit and Intent: A Model Canadian Policy on the Full Implementation of Modern Treaties Between Aboriginal Peoples and the Crown”....

And in this, under the model, one point specifically related to Bill C-47 is that the model Canadian policy calls for:

Implement[ing] dynamic self-government arrangements and negotiat[ing] stable, predictable and adequate funding arrangements;

Negotiate in good faith with Aboriginal signatories to conclude multi-year implementation plans and fiscal agreements and arrangements;

Provide sufficient and timely funding to fully implement the objectives of modern treaties;

So the issue of funding is very important when we are talking about Bill C-47. It has been raised over a number of years, and we have not seen that firm commitment. The deputy minister said that although they were considering it, he did not make any kind of commitment when he came before the committee a couple of years ago.

In conclusion, New Democrats are supporting this bill getting to committee. We are looking forward to a thorough review of a very technical, complex piece of legislation. It impacts on Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I look forward to having that very thorough discussion and getting this piece of legislation moved forward.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak to Bill C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

The reason I am reading that into the record today is that, with the legislation, it is very important since the Government of Canada did sign on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we would hope that it would expect that free, prior and informed consent. I raise it in the context of the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act. I raise that become it seems that some groups and organizations from the Northwest Territories feel that they have not been adequately consulted on this legislation.

The New Democrats will support sending this legislation at second reading to committee so we can fully review it. This is lengthy legislation and it would make some amendments to other acts.

Part of this legislation was originally introduced in 2010. It was Bill C-25, Nunavut planning and project assessment act. I will read from the legislative summary because it is still applicable to the legislation that we have before us. It is an important part of where we are going with this bill. I will focus mostly on Nunavut. My friend from Western Arctic covered some of the issues around the Northwest Territories.

In the legislative summary of Bill C-25, which is applicable to Bill C-47, it reads:

In a landmark ruling in 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Aboriginal peoples’ historic occupation of the land gave rise to legal rights in the land that had survived European settlement. In 1982, the Constitution was amended to “recognize and affirm” the “existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.” “Treaty rights” include rights under land claims agreements.

The Nunavut land claims agreement of 1993 took numerous years in order to be negotiated but there are some key objectives to the agreement that are related to the legislation before us.

The objectives of the agreement are:

to provide for certainty and clarity of rights to ownership and use of lands and resources and of rights for Inuit to participate in decision-making concerning the use, management and conservation of land, water and resources, including the offshore,

to provide Inuit with wildlife harvesting rights and rights to participate in decision-making concerning wildlife harvesting,

to provide Inuit with financial compensation and means of participating in economic opportunities, [and]

to encourage self-reliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit.

Under the provisions of the Nunavut land claims agreement, there are a couple of things:

Among many other things, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement provides for the federal government and the Inuit to establish a joint regime for land and resource management (articles 10 to 12). Article 10 sets out the criteria for the land and resource institutions to be created, while article 11 sets out the parameters for land use planning within the Nunavut Settlement Area, and article 12 details how development impact is to be evaluated.

Under article 10, the federal government undertakes to establish the following government institutions to administer the regime:

Surface Rights Tribunal;

Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC);

Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB); and

Nunavut Water Board.

Canada partially fulfilled its obligations by establishing the first and fourth of these institutions when Parliament enacted the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act 11 in 2002. Bill C-25 [which is now Bill C-47] fulfills the government’s obligations with regards to the other two institutions, the NPC and the NIRB. Note, however, that both of these institutions already exist. They came into being in 1997 under the Nunavut Settlement Agreement. Bill C-25 formalizes their establishment in legislation and sets out how they will continue to operate.

Again, the legislative summary indicates that:

Work on the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act began in 2002. To fulfill its obligation for close consultation with Inuit, the Government of Canada established the Nunavut Legislative Working Group, consisting of the Government of Canada (represented by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the Government of Nunavut, and supported by the participation of the NPC and the NIRB.

The Working Group met regularly through to 2007 to discuss and resolve policy issues, gaps the bill should address, and resolve questions and legal interpretation of the agreement and how these solutions should be reflected in the bill. When these issues were satisfactorily advanced in 2007, drafting of the bill began with oversight and direction from the Working Group.

I will use the government's backgrounder to quickly summarize the key elements in the bill that are relevant around the Nunavut planning and project assessment.

The proposed legislation will:

Continue the functioning of the Commission and the Board and clearly define and describe their powers, duties and functions, including how their members are appointed. It will also clearly define the roles and authorities of Inuit, federal and territorial governments;

Establish timelines for decision-making in the land use planning and environmental assessment processes to create a more efficient and predictable regulatory regime;

Define how, and by whom, Land Use Plans will be prepared, amended, reviewed and implemented in Nunavut;

Describe the process by which the Commission and the Board will examine development proposals; and

Harmonize the assessment process for transboundary projects by providing for review by joint panels and providing an opportunity for the Board to review and assess projects outside the Area that may have an adverse impact on the Nunavut Settlement Area;

Provide for the development of general and specific monitoring plans that will enable both governments to track the environmental, social and economic impacts of projects;

Establish effective enforcement tools to ensure terms and conditions from the plans and impact assessment process are followed; and

Streamline the impact assessment process, especially for smaller projects, and provide industry with clear, consistent and transparent guidelines, making investments in Nunavut more attractive and profitable.

Generally speaking, there is fairly wide support for the Nunavut part of the bill. Again, this goes back to 2010 when, before the aboriginal affairs committee of the day, the Nunavut Water Board appeared and indicated some support. Other organizations, as well as some of the mining companies, had indicated some support. However, some concerns are still being raised.

In a letter that we received from legal counsel from NTI, it anticipated that a number of amendments would be required to ensure the bill's compliance with the Nunavut land claims agreement. NTI intends to make submissions to the parliamentary committees on these aspects of the bill. It stated that it would be important that adequate time and space be available for NTI to make oral and written submissions to the committee, as well as NTI's regional Inuit associations, the NPC, NIRB and the Government of Nunavut if it so desired.

It is important to note that, although there is support, people still feel there are some amendments that are required to this particular section of the bill.

A number of concerns had been raised about funding and I will turn to the testimony that came before the committee back on May 13, 2010. The members of the NIRB indicated at that time that funding was always a concern. Once again, we have legislation where funding has not been built into it, and, of course, it is often not. However, there has not been a commitment around funding.

In response to questions posed at the committee to the deputy minister in 2010 about the commitment the government and the department had toward funding, the deputy minister provided assurances--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member.

First, obviously the movement of Bill C-47 and the agreement for this legislation to go forward and to be voted on in this place is very important to the north, but important to Canada as well. What is the member's opinion and the reaction of the people in the north to a couple of investments our government has made, in particular $71 million to the Mayo B, which was done in the Yukon? I know there was a tremendous reaction from the premier of the Yukon at the time and others, because it takes five communities off dependence on diesel. It is all about clean infrastructure being built and green infrastructure being built out of the green infrastructure fund. Another thing that has happened in the north is the northwest transmission line in northern British Columbia, $141 million. Again, it is green infrastructure going into place to create more green infrastructure and green energy for the people of the north.

Finally, in relation to the gun registry itself and the destruction of the data, we promised to do that for so long. How important is that to the northern people, getting green infrastructure, ensuring we make these plans so we have the green, clean energy that goes into the north instead of polluting diesel? How important are these things, along with the gun registry data destruction, to the people in the north whom the member represents?