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

[Tina Gargan, President, Northwest Territories Association of Communities]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, and committee staff, welcome to the Northwest Territories and our capital city of Yellowknife.

I am Tina Gargan, president of the Northwest Territories Association of Communities. I'm also the mayor of the hamlet of Fort Providence.

The NWTAC welcomes this opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution act.

The NWTAC is a non-profit, non-governmental organization representing the interests of 32 incorporated NWT communities. The NWTAC represents a unified voice for communities on municipal goals and issues, based upon the membership's democratic adoption of resolution and policy. We promote these priorities through advocacy to the territorial and federal governments and through our membership in the national Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Our members are significant municipal landowners and developers; are major users of water for supply of municipal water services, have local responsibilities for economic development, environmental affairs, and emergency services; and are key partners with the territorial government in all matters relating to the delivery of municipal government services to citizens. As such, we have a keen interest in the transfer to the territorial government of resource management responsibilities that affect these interests and in responsible environmental management throughout the NWT.

Bill C-15 is a very large and detailed piece of legislation. My presentation will speak to the NWTAC's principled positions on the new legislative arrangements proposed by Bill C-15.

The NWTAC strongly supports the devolution of resource management responsibilities to the Government of the Northwest Territories as proposed in Bill C-15. For NWT municipalities pursuing their mandates, the federal resource management regime and existing programming to date, while generally effective, has presented challenges, owing to the lack of territorial control over the legislation and over the design and delivery of programs serving communities' needs.

Changes to the legislation and even to regulations have relied upon the ability to get territorial business onto the very busy national legislative agenda. It's often a simple matter of geography. Ottawa is far away, and the basic functions of meeting, discussing, and acting are aggravated by time and distance. As the advocate of municipal interests, the NWTAC has had to focus lobbying efforts at the national level on matters related to local resource management in the Northwest Territories.

The NWTAC anticipates that the transfer of resource management responsibilities to the local and accountable territorial government will make a major contribution to the ability of local government and territorial legislators to work in partnership for the continuing improvement of public services. Living, working, and leading in the Northwest Territories, our territorially elected legislators will enjoy improved opportunities to bring their local knowledge to bear, to work in even closer partnership with municipal governments and representative bodies, and to far more quickly make the legislative, regulatory, and program improvements needed to serve our citizens. The development of programs and services for related or interlocking responsibilities can more effectively be coordinated within one government administration.

Improvements in the creation of law and programs with improved sensitivity to and knowledge of territorial realities have been obvious throughout the long history of the devolution of authorities to the territorial government level. A prime example of these improvements in the resource management field has been the transfer of forest management responsibilities to the GNWT. A host of opportunities for continuing improvements will come about as a result of the Bill C-15 devolution of powers.

As landowners and developers, NWTAC member communities will benefit from the transfer of federal lands to territorial control and in future will be able to deal with one management authority for lands outside municipal boundaries. Municipalities expect to benefit in areas where there is an overlap of authorities between federal laws or in instances where the sound administration of municipal law is affected by federal legislation that is difficult to change.

For example NWTAC members have long voiced concern by resolution with legislative provisions to allow for the staking of mineral claims within communities. The concentration of authority for both mining law and land law under one government authority is expected to provide a more responsive and coordinated forum for the resolution of these and similar issues. This is just one example of the benefits expected from the concentration of legislative and program authority within one government.

Coordination in the planning and development of major infrastructure, such as integration in the development and management of territorial and municipal road systems, will be enhanced. With the transfer of funding program resources and responsibilities to the territorial government, more locally coordinated arrangements for planning and development of major intra-territorial capital projects will be possible.

Municipalities also look forward to the increase in revenue flowing to the territorial government, which is the supplier of the majority of the municipal funding. With increased territorial revenues, our member communities look forward to the prospect of increased territorial capacity to meet municipal fiscal needs. The NWTAC and our member municipalities enjoy a very positive and constructive working relationship with the Government of the Northwest Territories. With the vesting of resource management authority at the territorial level, the NWTAC and our municipalities will continue to build cooperation for the improvement of services to our citizens.

Regarding the proposed C-15 arrangements for changes to environmental legislation, the NWTAC supports the continuing and responsible improvements of environmental processes and protections. As the advocate of municipal government interests, the NWTAC places a priority upon the ability of environmental processes to respect and be responsive to local and regional interests. The proposals contained in Bill C-15 are of critical importance to the future of public government in the Northwest Territories. They are the latest stage in the historic development of the Northwest Territories toward full responsible government.

I congratulate and thank the committee for ensuring that a portion of these deliberations have taken place here in the NWT and that our citizens have had the opportunity to present their views for your thoughtful consideration.

On behalf of the NWTAC and its membership, I thank you and wish you well and safe travels home.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you. We appreciate the time you took to spend with us today. We certainly appreciate that you have travelled, and you have been with us.

We'll turn now to representatives from Alternatives North. We have Ms. Wenman. Thanks so much for being with us. We also have Ms. Hamre. Thanks so much for joining us.

[Christine Wenman, Representative, Alternatives North]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and to present today. My name is Christine Wenman. I represent Ecology North, which is another non-profit organization. This has been a joint submission between Ecology North and Alternatives North.

Ecology North is a grassroots non-profit and Canadian registered charity that goes back in Yellowknife to 1971. We work with communities throughout the Northwest Territories on environmental issues.

[Karen Hamre, Representative, Alternatives North]

My name's Karen Hamre, and I'm representing Alternatives North. Alternatives North is a social justice coalition with individual members and organizations across the NWT.

[Christine Wenman]

We have submitted a rather comprehensive brief to the committee, and we're cognizant that we are the last witnesses here this afternoon so we will make this brief. We would like to emphasize three main points that were included in the brief. Our analysis is focused on the changes to the MVRMA that are included within Bill C-15.

The first point we'd like to make is that the changes to the MVRMA must be decoupled from the rest of the bill. Parliament needs to be free to debate those changes separately from the rest of Bill C-15. If these are not separated, they will be unable to show and discuss the problems with the MVRMA changes without also suggesting that they do not support devolution. These are very different issues.

We'd also like to bring forward, as has been heard here today, that the changes to the MVRMA are not in keeping with the spirit of devolution. There has been no evidence brought forward either today or previously that the changes proposed, such as amalgamating the boards or bringing more ministerial authority, will help the regulatory system to be more effective, efficient, or equitable.

Finally, as we've also heard here today very clearly, there is very little consensus on this section of the bill. This will detract from the effort to create the proper conditions for economic growth, jobs, and long-term prosperity in the NWT, which is supposed to be the intent of Bill C-15.

The second point we'd like to bring forward is that, uncoupled or not from the rest of the bill, the changes to the MVRMA need to be amended. First of all, there should be no dismantling of the regional land and water boards. The integrated co-management system that we have now works in the regions where land claims are settled. As was brought forward earlier by Mr. Willard Hagen, analyses have shown previously that the bulk of project proposals that are being sent to environmental assessment have been proposed in regions where land claim agreements have not been settled. If, however, we look to the settled regions, we can see substantial evidence that the current system can effectively fulfill the integrated co-management responsibilities that were intended in the writing of the act. Eliminating the regional boards and the regional panels will create more challenges than it will solve, for instance, by reducing clarity and increasing an adversarial environment and also by creating logistical challenges. For instance, we heard today that there is an opportunity for project panels with three board representatives. These will inevitably bring problems of quorum and also not ensure regional representation. Although it may allow for regional representation, that's not required by the legislation within the panels.

It's also unclear whether the proposed changes will lead to the closing of the regional board offices or result in cuts to the staff. Certainly it is clear that those board offices are not guaranteed in the changes to the legislation. This would diminish the regional access to board services. It would diminish the roles that the regional boards play in liaising in the regions, with the communities, and with the first nation governments. It will create a communications and relationship gap between people and decision-makers. This will be difficult not only for the first nations but also for the existing project proponents and industries that have working relationships in those regions, as we heard just recently from Mr. Hoefer. In other words, there is very little evidence that has been brought forward that these changes will in fact fix the system. They are likely to create a more adversarial environment and cause less clarity.

We would also like to emphasize the point that the changes should not be increasing the federal or ministerial authority, thus in turn diminishing the board's authority. For example, we see increased ministerial authority in setting timelines. These authorities should be kept within the discretion of the board and not of politicians. The boards are intended to perform arm's-length, independent, quasi-judicial roles. Politicizing the regulatory decision-making system in fact jeopardizes that role of the board and results in less clarity for project proponents. The increase in federal and ministerial authority diminishes co-management principles, which are quite fundamental to the whole regulatory process and fundamental to land claim agreements.

The final point we would like to make is that there is a review mechanism that's included within the MVRMA, in section 148, and this review mechanism is the environmental audits. Two audits have been completed to date: one in 2005, and one in 2010. These have been done in a comprehensive manner. They are mandated in the legislation. They involved proper consultation with all stakeholders. In spite of this, little to no progress has been made on many of the key audit recommendations, and the federal government has never issued a formal response.

I would like to bring a caveat to that point, which is that working groups at the board level did emerge in response to the recommendations in the audit, and that many of these working groups began prior to Mr. McCrank's report and were in response to the audits themselves, showing that the regulatory and adaptive management mechanism works well.

Unlike some of the changes proposed in Bill C-15, these recommendations are based on empirical evidence and analysis of those projects that have been referred to environmental assessment. They offer useful and proven recommendations of how to improve the overall land management in the NWT, and they should have been the foundation of any proposed changes.

[Karen Hamre]

Thank you for the time to emphasize those points. We hope that the brief plus the points we've made today will be helpful in your decisions about amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you so much.

We had one final witness, Mayor Roland. We anticipate that he may show up yet. If he does, I guess we'll end our questioning at that point and allow him to make his submission, and then we'll continue with the questioning. Until then, we'll turn to Mr. Bevington to ask the first questions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks very much to the witnesses.

Ms. Gargan, on your new role as president of the NWTAC, you've been thrown right into it, I see, in good order. We are moving along in the day, and you kept your comments to the devolution agreement. I think that's generally seen here as not the problem within the bill. There is great support for it.

Do you think that putting the two bills together, one with general support and the other with quite a lack of support throughout the north, was a good idea on the part of the federal government?

[Tina Gargan]

Because I'm so new in my position, I'm going to turn that question over to Sara.

[Sara Brown, Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Territories Association of Communities]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

Really, we don't have clear direction from our members on that element, so it would be really inappropriate for us to comment. We do have a lot of direction about the empowerment of the GNWT and that's why we kept our comments to the devolution portion. It would really be inappropriate at this time for us to comment on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

To Alternatives North, of course you've chosen to go the other way and keep your comments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

I'm struck by the audit comment that the vast majority of MVRMA applications are processed in a timely fashion, and the timelines for an application in settled land claims regions with the existing regional boards are shorter and can be more reliably predicted than for unsettled regions. Now, the environmental audit didn't have the opportunity to analyze that, and of course, analyzing something as complex as that is difficult.

I think one of the things we haven't talked about, and it might explain it a little better, is the nature of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It's unique in Canada in that it has a reference to the socio-economic and cultural well-being of the community. It has a very strong under law requirement, more so than other environmental assessments, which tend to be more focused on environmental impacts. This law has the requirement to do that extra work at a community level. Perhaps that's one of the reasons it was negotiated in the fashion that it was and the law was set up in the fashion it was. The concerns of many of the people who have spoken here about getting rid of the regional boards exist because the law actually favours doing things that speak to the communities in the north.

Have you any thoughts on that particular direction?

[Karen Hamre]

Yes. The MVRMA is different by design; that's sort of the catchphrase. It is set up differently than a lot of other systems are, and that should be retained, absolutely.

Premier McLeod said that bringing decision-making closer to home...well, that includes closer to the communities as well, not just closer to Yellowknife. The MVRMA boards as they are set up now are in keeping with co-management principles of land claims and of the act itself. The way the boards are set up, there is a Mackenzie Valley board now. There is no need to create one. There is one.

Also, we already have panels. We have the Gwich'in, Sahtu and the Wek'eezhii, so there's no need to fix something that is (a) working and is (b) different by design. The part that's not working is the fact that we don't have land claims settled in the majority of the populated areas of the NWT, and not all the land use plans done either.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, you might suggest, then, that there might be a case to be made that by going to a centralized board the actual functioning of the law—I think it's section 15 in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act—remains the same. The same focus is still required of the act, yet we're changing the component pieces of it that were designed to provide that focus. Would this be a concern that would come out of the work you've done on this?

[Karen Hamre]

Yes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes. I sat on the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board for a number of years. We didn't have a problem doing the work in the timeframes that fit with this act, but certainly it was very important to have the confidence of the communities in order to do our work. If significant public concern was there.... That's one of the things that the regional boards seem to have the ability to avoid or to mitigate—significant public concern over a development.

With the attitude of communities towards Yellowknife, if we centralize these boards in Yellowknife, how will that play out?

[Karen Hamre]

I think what Grand Chief Erasmus said this morning basically speaks to that. There is trust with these boards as they are currently set up, and why fix something that's not broken?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to Mr. Seeback now for the next round of questioning.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can't see all of your name tag, Tina. Is it okay if I call you Tina? Great.

I welcomed your questions on devolution. I don't know if you were here when Premier McLeod was, but he used some strong language. He called it a game-changer for northerners, with the necessary tools to develop resources and grow the economy. I take it you would agree with those statements with respect to devolution.

[Tina Gargan]

I wasn't present when the honourable premier spoke today, and I'm not certain as to which words were used exactly, but we do support enhancement within the GNWT in building partnerships.

Thank you.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I know that you're not supportive of the second aspect, which is of course the amendments to the MVRMA. One of the things.... I don't know if you were here earlier when we had Mr. McCrank testify before the committee. Were you here when we heard his testimony? I found it quite interesting, in that—

Mr. Chair, do you want to...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You go ahead.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Do you want me to finish my question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Why don't you finish your question? Then we'll welcome....

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Okay.

He put forth something that I thought was quite interesting when we were talking about the ability to have local input. He was suggesting that local input is better served when you're dealing with zoning and deciding land use plans. That's where he thought community input was the most important, because you can then determine what type of development is actually permitted in certain areas.

From my review of the legislation, even with the changes, that in fact does not change. The ability of the board does not allow them to issue, amend, or renew licences unless they accord with applicable land use plans. So it seems to me that some of that is still present even in the proposed changes.

I would welcome your comments on that.

[Karen Hamre]

I have some personal comments on this one, in fact, because I sat for about a decade on the Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board. It's hard to overstate how important it is to have an approved land use plan.