Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Jan. 27th, 2014

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. McCrank.

[Neil McCrank]

Mr. Bevington, I think it was clear even when I was doing my review of the regulatory systems that there were adjustments, amendments, and improvements to the regulatory system being put in place. Mr. Hagen and I, I know, discussed that during the timeframe.

We had a round table discussion at the end of my consultation with all of the different parties. I think there were some 100 or so parties that I consulted with. When we had a round table in this very room in March of 2008 and reviewed the improvements that were made, everybody was in agreement that this was a good step in the right direction.

But could it achieve the ultimate objective of having a system that met all of the criteria that I outlined in my report? Two of those criteria were these. Could the system, even with those improvements, end up being understandable to the outside world and to the public within the NWT? Also, could all of those regulatory bodies have the capacity necessary to perform the function of a resource regulatory body?

I don't think there was any surprise when I, at the end of this, recommended the structural change to accommodate that, because those issues were discussed at the round table, and I think there was, by and large, pretty much agreement that there have to be some significant changes to reach those objectives, assuming that everybody agrees with those objectives and criteria that I outlined.

As for those at the meeting in the round table, some said to take bold action—that there has to be some bold action to bring this system to a point where it will work effectively and responsibly in the interests of the public of the Northwest Territories.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Pollard, you've been engaged in this. You didn't give us many details about what you were doing, but I appreciate that you were engaged in this.

Once again, the previous panel presented a draft framework for a process respecting changes to the regulatory system. Did they present that framework to you?

[John Pollard]

I think the response I've received from most of the first nation aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories is that they're opposed to the structure that I recommended to the minister.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, I'm asking you if you received the draft framework for process dated November 22, 2011?

[Neil McCrank]

I'm aware of it. Yes, sir.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So where did it go once you received it?

[John Pollard]

It wasn't for me to decide on the framework—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You were engaged in dealing with the regulatory system in the north—

[John Pollard]

That is correct.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

—and you received the document. It was just information to you?

[John Pollard]

That is correct.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So it didn't interfere....

What was your role? Was it to sell the changes that were proposed by the Government of Canada or was it to engage the stakeholders in this territory in a meaningful discussion about those changes?

[John Pollard]

My role was to look at the regulatory system, to look at changes that could be made to the regulatory system without disturbing land claims, within the laws of Canada, to make recommendations to the federal government, to the minister, and then to engage people in discussions on those proposed changes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So you had a draft framework that was put forward. Did you respond to it, to the first nations, about how changes were going to be made to these fundamental aspects of their land claims, to the importance of them?

[John Pollard]

Mr. Chairman, I think the draft framework that's being discussed is a framework agreement about how to go about doing this, as opposed to what I was doing, which was going out to engage people. So it wasn't in my purview to deal with that framework.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. That's fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

We'll turn to Mr. Strahl now for his round of questioning.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pollard, again, I think it's always beneficial to maybe speak to an audience that is broader than just those of us around the table. Can you explain the changes that have been proposed? What does this mean? How many people, how many boards, are we talking about coming into the single board? How many board members are there under the current system and how many are envisioned under the system proposed in Bill C-15?

[John Pollard]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the very beginning of this process, I went and looked at the pertinent land claims and legislation. I took the liberty of going back and looking at the Dene-Métis claim, the comprehensive claim, which was not ratified. It was not signed. It was not agreed to. I went back and looked at that to see just what people thought about the regulation of land and water in the Mackenzie Valley, in the settlement region, as it's called, in the comprehensive claim.

The comprehensive claim that failed called for one land and water board. Then, after that failure, certain groups took up regional land claims, the first one being the Gwich'in. They were accommodated in their land claim with a five-person land and water board.

Next came the Sahtu. They had five people on their land and water board.

Then came the Tlicho claim, which was more comprehensive. They became a government, and they received a land and water board as well.

So that's 15. In the meantime, there is the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Inasmuch as those three regional panels only deal with things in their own region, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board deals with the unsettled areas of the Northwest Territories, commonly known as the South Slave and Dehcho.

In addition—I stand to be corrected, because the chairman is right next to me—they would deal with any transboundary issues. If a development crossed two boundaries in the Northwest Territories, then it would be dealt with by the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.

That brings to 20 the people who are regulating in the unsettled regions and also in the settled regions of the Northwest Territories.

I'm going from memory, but I think it's section 99 of the existing act that says when you become a member of a regional panel, you automatically become a member of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. Technically, then, there are 20 people on that board at the present time.

If you look at, I think, section 108 of the existing act, there is a provision in there for two more regional panels. I attribute them to one in the South Slave and one in Dehcho. They have never been proclaimed by the government, but the act allows for it.

That would bring you to a potential of 30 people who, at the end of the day, would be adjudicating on land and water issues in the Mackenzie Valley.

I also heard from some of the people who are negotiating claims at the present time that they would like to have their own regional panel as well. So there's a base there of 30 in the legislation, and I could see that it could go further, depending on land claims.

I hope that's an explanation of the number of people.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Yes. So the proposed change brings that from 30 down to....

[John Pollard]

Well, I went back and looked at each of the settled land claims. I think it's been pointed out to the committee before that each of the claims—and these claims trump legislation—say that where, by legislation, an area larger than the settlement area is formed to be taken care of by a larger board, then the regional panels can go away or they can stay. It's either go or stay.

I looked at what the rule was if you just had the minimum appointment, and it's one from each of the settled land claims. Then I said, okay, there are two regional panels that are not in play, so that would be two more aboriginal seats. It's a co-managed system, so government gets to put five on there. That was 10, and with the chairperson, 11.

So in effect, the potential of 30 has been reduced down to 11.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

In the previous panel, Mr. Seeback mentioned that this single board was “contemplated” in those other comprehensive agreements. You held over 50 consultations, from my understanding. Is that fact in dispute? I've read the sections of those agreements that seem to contemplate that, but you've obviously been on the road. You've had those 50 meetings.

So is there any acknowledgement of that? Or how do we square that circle where the agreements appear to show that this was contemplated, but we heard quite different in the previous panel?

[John Pollard]

I've been unable to ascertain that myself. I've said to people, “Look, it's in the land claim, so tell me why we can't pick this up by legislation and enact it?” I think I got the feeling that first nations aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories—and in fact across Canada—are deeply welded to the land and water. I mean that there's a connection there that is deep, and I think that this is at some times a very emotional issue. They cherish their land and water boards. They cherish these regional panels. I respect that.

I think that it's in black and white that by legislation it can be changed, yes, but there's an emotional attachment and a regional attachment to these panels, and it's very difficult for these aboriginal groups to foresee giving up their regional panels. I understand it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to Ms. Jones for the next questions.