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

[Tara Shannon]

There are two points, Mr. Chair.

The first point is that, once appointed, the appointees are not representatives of the aboriginal group from which the nomination was received. They are independent members of the board.

With respect to the chair and the appointments to the smaller committees, we had to be in a situation where the chair wasn't constrained from appointing a panel on the basis of an appointee being unavailable to participate in the smaller committee.

Does anyone else want to add to that?

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I'm sorry. I didn't hear what he said.

[Tom Isaac]

The obligation, if you will, on the chairperson to appoint a person from the specific region when the application is in respect of that region is if it's reasonable to do so. It would have to be unreasonable to do so for him not to follow that directive in the legislation. It's a pretty strong commitment for him to do that.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Here's what my other question has to do with. First of all, has the definition of “licence” or “permit” changed in the context of this legislation?

The second part of the question has to do with proposed section 59, which is on page 107, and says, “The Board has jurisdiction in respect of all uses of land in the Mackenzie Valley....”. Is this retroactive? Can they change any permitting or licensing that has already been issued?

[Alison Lobsinger]

No.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

They can't?

[Alison Lobsinger]

The definition hasn't been changed. The change you see in proposed section 59 is essentially acknowledging the restructured board. It's saying that the restructured Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has jurisdiction in the entire Mackenzie Valley, in comparison to what's in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act now, which says that regional panels have jurisdiction within their specific management areas.

Proposed section 59 on page 107 is directly acknowledging that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board regulates within the entire Mackenzie Valley following these changes.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So nothing in the legislation states that any licensing or permitting that has already been granted can be changed or retracted.

[Alison Lobsinger]

No.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Bevington had some follow-up final questions, and then we'll turn to Mr. Strahl for the final questions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I just want to clarify one thing. Under section 90 in the Constitution, a bill passed by the provinces has a year before the federal government can disallow it.

Is that correct, under the Constitution of Canada?

[Tom Isaac]

I haven't looked at in a little while, but there are provisions for the disallowance by the Governor General in respect of provincial legislation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Through the crown.

[Tom Isaac]

Pardon me?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Through the crown: there's no instance where a lieutenant governor can refuse to sign legislation in the provinces. Is that correct?

[Tom Isaac]

Not a lieutenant governor, no. It's the Governor General in respect of—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So really, the territorial...the provisions within this act are much more immediate than is allowed under the Constitution for the provinces.

In other words, the commissioner acting for the Governor in Council can simply refuse to sign the legislation. Is that correct?

[Tom Isaac]

He can refuse to give assent to the legislation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes.

[Tom Isaac]

There's also a provision in the Constitution analogous to that. That's not the disallowance provision, but the ability for the Governor General to withhold assent to provincial legislation.

There are two provisions. One is a disallowance provision and one is the ability to withhold assent to legislation. The Constitution has both of those in respect of provincial legislation.

The Northwest Territories Act, the Nunavut Act, and the Yukon Act have those two things, but in respect of territorial legislation. It's the Governor in Council in respect of territorial legislation and it's the Governor General in respect of the provincial legislation. I think that's more or less it.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I'll go back to this audit. What we heard from McCrank in his testimony was that no one in the Northwest Territories suggested getting rid of the regional boards. That was an idea that came from McCrank himself. He admitted that in the testimony.

Now we see that the audit says that the processing times are several times longer for the central Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board than for the regional boards, with the shortest time by far where there are both a regional board under a settled treaty and a land use plan.

What we have is a situation where the regional boards are actually performing their function more efficiently than the central board.

Was that part of any discussion within your department?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Again, Mr. Bevington, I think we're not looking for opinions or discussion. We're looking for the facts and the merits on which amendments may fall.

I'll turn to you, Ms. Shannon, if there's anything you'd like to add on that.

[Tara Shannon]

I would just say that the restructuring proposal was based on a number of inputs: the 2008 McCrank report, the considerations included in the Northwest Territories environmental audits, and other Auditor General reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Strahl, you have no further questions? Okay.

Colleagues, we will now go in camera to discuss committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]