Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 4th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It is now 3:30, so I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the 12th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we continue our study of Bill C-15.

We have before us officials from the department. We want to thank you for making your time available.

Mr. Wayne Walsh and Mr. Tom Isaac, thanks for joining us.

As well, Tara Shannon and Alison Lobsinger, thank you for joining us.

We appreciate the fact that you have been working on this for some time. You are truly the resident experts with regard to what's contained in these documents, and we appreciate the fact that you've come back to answer questions as we consider amendments.

We're going to start our rounds of questions with Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I thank the witnesses for being here today.

First of all, I want to know whether you're familiar with the testimony that took place in Yellowknife.

[Voices]

Yes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Everyone's gone through that testimony in good fashion.

I think one of the common things that came from the first nations in their presentations, whether it was the Tlicho, the Akaitcho, the Dehcho, or the Katlodeeche First Nation, was the feeling that the consultation process was flawed.

When you consulted on these two matters, one being devolution and one being the changes to the MVRMA, you did those in separate sessions. Is that correct? That was the testimony that was given to us by the Tlicho.

[Tara Shannon, Director, Resource Policy and Programs Directorate, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

That's correct, yes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

If the plan of the department was to provide this in one bill, why did you choose, in the months prior to the introduction of the legislation, to keep these two matters separate in consultation?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, I apologize to Mr. Bevington for interrupting him.

The minister is not here. These are not the people who made that decision. Therefore, I think we need to stick to what they are, which is independent public servants. If he asks questions about how the bill was structured or that process.... I think he should have asked that question of the minister, and I think he did and has his answer.

I seek your guidance in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We are constrained somewhat in terms of.... We know the protocol when officials are before us. Mr. Bevington is a long-standing member of this committee, and I fully expect that he'll keep his questions to technical aspects of the provisions of the bill.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, just to the point of order and not to my timeframe—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I have ruled, Mr. Bevington, on the point of order.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That I was in error in bringing this forward?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

No, I didn't rule you in error, Mr. Bevington. I reminded and encouraged all members to continue to respect the responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians.

I turn it back to you, Mr. Bevington, for your opening questions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. Well, that certainly was something that was brought forward by the testimony in Yellowknife, that these two aspects, the MVRMA and the devolution bill, were brought forward in separate sessions. I guess what I could ask you then is, were you instructed to do it in that fashion, or was that a choice that the department made?

[Wayne Walsh, Director, Northwest Territories Devolution Negotiations, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Chair, if I may do so, I think it's important to provide the full contextual piece of how the consultations were done with both initiatives.

First of all, with respect to devolution, we conducted a fairly comprehensive consultation process—three phases—which took place from January 2011 up until we signed the devolution agreement. During that period, we consulted with 22 different aboriginal groups, first nation communities, and that influenced the outcome of our negotiation positions.

My understanding is that my colleagues who were working on regulatory improvement undertook similar consultations during the development of the framework of their proposal.

Where we then began to converge with respect to the two initiatives was on August 16, 2013, when the same groups, the 22 first nation communities and aboriginal groups, were sent a package. The package contained all four elements of the bill that is now before you.

We set out a timeline. It was from that point on that the consultations were coordinated on the elements of the legislative proposal. We set a deadline of October 15 to receive comments, whether they were written or through meetings with the department. From there we moved forward with our recommendations on a final approach to the government. The government then made the decision on how they wished to proceed with Bill C-15.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Were the drafts separate when you presented the two bills? My understanding is that they were actually separate drafts, two separate pieces of legislation, that were presented.

[Wayne Walsh]

There were actually four. The bill is structured in four parts. The way we sent out the package, although it was sent in one envelope, it was in four different bills.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When you talked with the consultation sessions, was the consultation taking place as a whole or was it taking place in each particular section?

[Tara Shannon]

We consulted on the regulatory improvements components over a period of one week. Our devolution colleagues were present in the room to answer any questions about the relationship to devolution.

Through our consultations on regulatory improvement, we were always very clear that the objective was to have regulatory improvement in place prior to the devolution effective date of April 1, 2014.

At the same time, through those consultations, we always indicated to the aboriginal parties that the Northwest Territories Waters Act would essentially have to be imported into the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in order to effect devolution, so that they would see two types of amendments in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, those with respect to devolution and those with respect to regulatory improvement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Are you familiar with the protocol presented by the first nations on January 14, 2011, indicating that the AIP included terms that were not in the best interests of the aboriginal people?

[Wayne Walsh]

Are you referring to the devolution AIP?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes.

[Wayne Walsh]

No.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

No, you weren't familiar with that? That's part of the testimony of the Akaitcho Territory Dene First Nations.

[A voice]

Was that the regulatory improvement process protocol?

[Tara Shannon]

Yes. I can speak to that. The aboriginal parties did submit a regulatory improvement framework protocol that they were proposing as a process for regulatory improvement amendments.

However, our minister at the time clearly stated in a response of February 29, 2012 that their approach was not accepted and indicated how he would be proceeding with consultations.