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.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I've actually put these names in front of Parliament on occasion, so it's not that these...and these people all understand what's going on.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
10:15 a.m.
As an Individual
I don't want to be difficult, but I'm trying to separate the two reports I did, one after the other.
One was on the appointment process in Alberta relating to agencies, boards, and commissions, and I clearly heard it there; there's no question about it. The recommendation that we made—which I would have made, I think, if I had heard a lot about it, in the Northwest Territories—was that the appointment process should be transparent, based on qualifications for the jobs as opposed to politics. It doesn't mean that people for a particular political party wouldn't be appointed, but rather that appointment should not be based on politics. That was the recommendation I made in Alberta, and I would stand behind that recommendation, if one were to ask me, in the NWT as well.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Well, here is the next question. One of the things that happen with boards when they put forward recommendations is that government agencies present at the board level, and then the recommendations go forward from the board to Ottawa, and these same agencies then get another kick at the cat with the recommendations that come from the board. Do you not think it would be better—and this is something the boards are asking for—that government agencies other than INAC leave their recommendations with the board, and then, when the process goes forward to Ottawa, that simply the INAC minister be responsible for those recommendations?
10:15 a.m.
As an Individual
Are you referring to the responsibility the minister has under section 130 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, whereby he gets recommendations and then a further review is done in Ottawa?
10:15 a.m.
As an Individual
You'll note that this was one of the recommendations I made, number 17: that a protocol be developed to deal with those, because I heard those complaints. I'm not saying which way it should go; I'm just saying it should be more open and transparent—it's on page 31 of my report—and that a protocol should be developed so that people understand how this system actually works. It comes here and it's a big black hole, the decision comes out some time later, and nobody knows how it was reached. I think it's important that people know how decisions are reached.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I think you're correct on the land use plans. As I said, there's a lot of trouble with restructuring.
Take the capacity issue. I was on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board trying to deal with the socio-economic impacts, which we have to deal with under the law. We didn't have the money to have an economist on board. The capacity is really limited. I think you talked of that. In order to accomplish the work, you need to have people who can provide you with the answers.
10:15 a.m.
As an Individual
I tried to address that issue. I can't remember the recommendation specifically, but it's that there should be capacity.
I guess it's on page 23; it's recommendation number seven. The specific recommendation relating to that issue was that the federal government should ensure that a regulatory body has a structured.... Oh, that's with respect to education. But I did, earlier in that section, talk about the capacity issue in terms of funding, to ensure that the boards have the funding to do the job they are required to do.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
I don't think we can do that. It would have to be by unanimous consent of the committee, and it would have to be in both languages.
But thank you very much.
Do you have a question, Mr. Russell?
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Maybe we'll work it in during your next time slot, if you have one.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bevington.
Now we'll go back to Mr. Duncan for five minutes.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you once again.
I'm trying to get a little clarity in my mind. Your report is primarily dedicated to what changes could be made at the federal...it's a recommendation to the federal minister. I guess my question is whether there are some obvious things the territories or the aboriginal groups could do that are either not talked about or that are worthy of injecting into this discussion today and of which you became aware during this exercise.
10:20 a.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Duncan, I can't say there are any with respect to the Northwest Territories government. They obviously, as you know, are looking for devolution to occur, so that they get more control of the process in the north. I did spend some time with them, and that's their main pitch, because they believe those decisions should be made in the north.
With respect to aboriginal communities, they would have to cooperate on recommendations I've made. I think almost any of them would require perhaps not that the aboriginal community take the first step, but obviously they would have to agree to cooperate. If amendments were going to be made to the land claims agreements, obviously they would have to be involved very much in that process.
My assignment was to make recommendations to the federal government, but obviously, as I point out in the report, there has to be some cooperation from the different parties throughout the agreement.
This might be a good time, if I may, Mr. Duncan, just to jump off on that point.
If you look at the restructuring recommendations that were made, restructuring option A would, I believe, require changes to the land claim agreements, or very serious negotiations up to and perhaps including changes. Option B was something a little less than that, in that you turn the local boards into administrative bodies with no quasi-judicial component—that would be handled by the central board—with the notion that, depending on how this worked, eventually you would get to the point of option A in any event. I just wanted to make sure we understood that there were two separate options.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Regarding this whole question of devolution in the NWT, when devolution occurred in the Yukon we had an umbrella agreement in place for the Yukon first nations. It was fairly simple in terms of how the devolution process could be achieved, and it was the same in Nunavut with the Nunavut agreement. I'm just wondering, devolution in itself is complicated in the NWT at this point, is it not? It has to happen in a far different way because of the number of agreements that are in place, the number of governments that are in place. This is not something I've thought a lot about before today, but perhaps you could comment on that.
10:20 a.m.
As an Individual
It will be a sort of indirect comment in that I wasn't specifically looking at that issue. I did note how it occurred in the Yukon and the fact that they're moving in that direction—that is, the federal government—in both the NWT and Nunavut. I don't think there's any doubt that the complexity in the Northwest Territories relating to individual regional land claim agreements will add to that problem. It will be probably easier in Nunavut, as it was with the Yukon, because there's one agreement for the entire Nunavut with the three associations in Nunavut. I haven't really been part of that. I just assume it's very difficult or it would have been done.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
You'll have another question coming up.
Now we'll go to Mr. Bagnell for five minutes.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
On the consistency of the different areas, I have no problem with their being different. That's why there are different boards in different areas. If a company wants to set up in China or Iran or Canada, Canada has the right to have different laws, and the reason we have different boards in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories is so the local people can have the things they want in their area. I don't have a problem with that.
Keeping that as an assumption, my question is this. What is the biggest holdup? The biggest problem in the Northwest Territories, I think, is the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. What is the biggest holdup? If as Dennis says, you can do a project in a particular area and you only have to go through one board—which of course might be different if you're going to the next area—that's fine; that's the people's right. But I assume the problem then in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is that you are going through so many jurisdictions. It gets complicated because of the length of it and all the different areas it goes through.
What would you say is the biggest thing that's dragging on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline regulatory approvals?
