Evidence of meeting #59 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Policy Analyst, Resource Policy and Programs Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I wouldn't be able to tell you that off the top of my head.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
You've indicated there are differences in mineral administration systems across the country. Which ones don't have free entry systems?
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
I think the maritime provinces don't have free entry systems, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia.... Quebec, Ontario, B.C., Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories have free entry. I think Alberta does, and Manitoba as well.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
Likely Saskatchewan. Free entry is, generally speaking, in mineral jurisdictions with the prevailing system.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
What part of Canada has mineral exploration not taking place?
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
I think it would take place everywhere, but less so in the maritime provinces.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
I think so. I haven't looked at that in a long time.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Can you bring that back to us because you made the point that there are different approaches with these laws based on different systems. I would like to see if there are any different approaches within the same systems.
The unsettled lands are a difficult issue. Now, we have land withdrawals in the Northwest Territories in two regions, large-scale land withdrawals. To me that suggests there's an interest in the land, that the government has acknowledged there's an interest in that land. What you're saying is that interest does not apply to this legislation. It doesn't establish any level of future ownership or the importance of that ownership. The government doesn't have a responsibility to deal with that land in a different fashion than crown land that is not under withdrawal.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
When land is withdrawn from disposition under the Territorial Lands Act, the intent of that withdrawal is that no new interests will be issued in that land. They do that for a number of reasons usually with respect to what future considerations might be for that land, such as land claim negotiations, protected areas, things like that. When they withdraw land, the purpose is to stop new interests from being issued in that land.
However, generally speaking, there are existing interests in the land that's withdrawn. In the case where there was an existing surface interest and existing subsurface interest, there is a potential for a dispute to arise between access in respect of that mineral interest. The bill applies to that circumstance. It's not a very common circumstance.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Within the fact that there's some implied ownership with withdrawal lands that hasn't been settled, then you're saying this board should have the right to give access to that over those properties that have not been settled, that have not been finally determined, and that the law of general application should apply to all of them.
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
We wouldn't accept the view that a land withdrawal is a recognition of any sort of implied ownership of a party to the land. We don't accept that as being the case of a withdrawal. Like I said, a withdrawal is just to prohibit new interests from being issued. It's not recognition that someone else has ownership or an interest in law in that land.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I don't think the view of my colleague Mr. Seeback that these amendments have been discussed already is really germane to what we're doing here. This is a legislative committee that has to determine whether the government and the bureaucracy have acted fairly in determining the nature of this bill, not whether you could use your upper hand in a working group to put forward the terms and conditions that you want. No, our job is to actually interpret what is fair for people. Wouldn't you agree?
Senior Counsel, Negotiations, Northern Affairs and Federal Interlocuter, Department of Justice
Yes, we're here to assist the committee and answer questions to that end.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Bevington, your time is up.
We'll now turn to Mr. Seeback for any final questions that he might have, and if not—
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
That's very fortuitous considering Mr. Bevington found my questions so entertaining. I'm happy to get a second chance to go down a couple of different roads.
That's certainly not what I was suggesting, Mr. Bevington, but I'm trying to explain that there seemed to have been significant back and forth in the negotiation with respect to this legislation. Some at the committee seemed to suggest that this was a take it or leave it type of exercise. From what I'm able to see, and especially with some of the statements that were made by Paula in her opening statement, that's quite far from the truth.
To pick up on that, with respect to part of your opening statement when you talked about how to fulfill our obligations, three successive draft legislation proposals were distributed. I take it that there was some give and take with respect to each draft proposal. Certainly some of the things that certain parties wanted included in the legislation were included in subsequent drafts. Is that fair to say?
Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
It is correct. Over the course of each of those circulations of the draft, there were responses to requests and indications where accommodation measures were made and where they were not made and why they were not made.
That occurred in each of the three rounds, I'll call them, for the consultation for the Northwest Territories surface rights board act.
Conservative
Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Over the course of the consultation, it took a total of approximately two years.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
One of the things that I heard at this committee previously, and I'll ask you to comment on, and you can agree or disagree with what I'm putting forward, is that, effectively, no one got everything they wanted, but everybody certainly got some of what they wanted or perhaps most of what they wanted.
Would you agree with that assessment? Do you think that's a fair characterization of what took place with respect to the negotiation and the drafting of this legislation?
Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I think the drafting of any legislation involves a lot of give and take and discussion among the parties. It's a delicate balance of all of those interests and discussions. I would say, by and large, all the parties felt they had been consulted, their views had been heard, and they had understood where accommodations were made and not made. The bill in totality represents many years of that back and forth and that delicate balance that ultimately is in the bill before the committee.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Great. With respect to the amendments that NTI put forward, if they are not implemented, do you think that would jeopardize a clear interpretation of NUPPAA?
Environmental Policy Analyst, Environmental Policies and Studies, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
No. Do you want—