Evidence of meeting #25 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was boards.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
You're right, we don't have that in place. I believe they're working on it.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
In terms of what we're talking about here, if we're able to get some action on land use, would this improve the regulatory system, even with the 17 boards we currently have, and bring some consistent context?
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
I think the land use plans would help in the process, but I don't think they would solve the issue that we have, which is that there is a complex series of regulatory bodies that do not have the capacity to do the job they were set up to do.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Is this a good short-term or medium-term option while we work on the more complex problems of board structure in land claims?
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
Regardless of what else you do, I think the land use plan should be a priority. From there, you can make other choices and other decisions. So in my view, would land use plans would be a good start? They absolutely would.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Thank you, Mr. Payne.
We'll go to Mr. Bevington, then I have a short question, and then we'll go to Mr. Bagnell for a short question. I think that will just about do it.
Mr. Bevington.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I think we are moving along here, but there's still a little confusion about the boards. Five of the boards are land use planning boards. Five of the boards that are involved are actually supposed to do the land use planning and come up with a land use plan. That's what five boards in five regions do. Five boards in five regions do the renewable resource work. They look at the wildlife and habitat. They're intimately involved in decisions about things that perhaps don't affect development as much as they do socio-economic traditional practices in communities. You have two boards that are set up for those reasons. The third set of boards is the land and water boards, which look at development and, within 45 days, either make a decision or push them up to an environmental assessment.
The 17 boards are divided into three very distinct areas according to region. They're not always engaged in every single project. Is that correct?
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
You can either get through a development project with one board--for example, if the land and water board sees your application and says, okay, there's no problems with it, go ahead--or they can kick it up to the environmental assessment board, which is one board for the whole territory. The complexity is not on every project.
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
It's not on every individual project, but if the project included more than one region--and as I said, a lot of industry has the capacity and the will to want to go to a lot of different regions--then they would involve a lot of different boards. But you're right, if you took one specific project like the Diavik Mine--one project, one area--you could get through the process if you had the money to support it.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
That applies to probably 90% of the projects. There has only been one project, as far as I know--the Mackenzie Valley pipeline--that has tied together so many of these different regions. Most of the projects are region sensitive.
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
That depends on which industry you're talking about, but both the mining industry and the oil and gas industry expressed to me the concern that they would be working in two or three different areas. As a result, they would have to learn and run through two or three different boards in the course of that, with the projects sometimes overlapping and sometimes not overlapping.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
The same might be the case between northwestern Alberta and northeastern B.C. They might have the same particular problem. Is that correct?
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
That's correct. If a company in B.C. wanted to do work in Alberta, they would deal with one regulatory body as opposed to, if there was an area 10 miles in length, dealing with four or five.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
In some respects, it's not that there are so many boards; it's the fact that the companies think there are somewhat different standards in each board, or that somehow these boards are judging projects differently. Doesn't that go back again to land use plans? If the land use plans were settled, the companies would understand very well what's required of them when they go into an area.
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
My understanding of what we would be doing in terms of land use plans is that you'd carve off areas that are subject to development and areas that are not subject to development. On those that are subject to development, then you'd go through the different land and water boards or the environmental impact review board, and each area would have its own set of rules respecting that.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
And the problem of those rules that respect development--even down to the size of a seismic cut--were issues that we didn't have answers to when we were on the Mackenzie Valley board, because the land use plans had not been done. So they hadn't set the standards for development in the areas that they were going to open up for development. They hadn't even determined which areas were going to be there for development and which weren't without those land use plans.
10:45 a.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Bevington, you and I may have a fundamental difference in understanding. The land use planning function, in my view, would be to determine whether an area should be developed or not. Once it can be developed, then the specific rules and guides relating to how the development would occur would come out of the regulatory body in that area. And that's where you get inconsistency from area to area.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Okay, that will do it. Thank you, Mr. Bevington.
Now I'm going to take one of the government spots here, and then we'll go to Mr. Bagnell for a wrap-up question.
First of all, I have a couple of questions just for clarification, Mr. McCrank. In terms of the coverage of NWT, would it be fair to say that the regulatory boards have entire coverage of the territory? No matter where one would develop in NWT, you would be dealing with at least one of the.... In other words, is there 100% coverage of the territory in that respect?
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
The issue of land use planning has been kind of shunted around our committee here this morning. Just so it's clear for the record, you gave an example that the first order of priority would be to complete land use plans. If I was to draw a parallel to, say, my understanding of it here in Ontario, for example, it would be tantamount to the community there in fact prescribing some sort of official plan or designating the lands for different uses--in other words, environmentally protected lands or making decisions about which areas within their jurisdiction or region would be set aside for specific purposes that would restrict development. And these would be local decisions. Is that the correct understanding?
10:45 a.m.
As an Individual
I'm not sure how it works in Ontario. I think I did read that a bill was just introduced relating to land use plans for northern Ontario. I haven't read it yet.
But what I'm thinking of and the way I'm describing it is that it comes out of the land claim agreements. And the role of the federal government is that together they would decide. For instance, in the Gwich'in area there would be a decision made on a land use planning function as to which areas would be developed and which would not be developed. And from that process the federal government would designate what the land use plan would actually be.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
I think your suggestion was that on your option one, for example, the local community or local interest would still be in fact represented via the land use planning process.