Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 31-43 of 43
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  To be very clear, all landowners—that includes the NTI, the federal government, and the territorial government—are required to follow the land use plan, and therefore NTI should be one of the signatories signing off. Respectfully, the land claims agreement, which Mr. Quassa here

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Should it be split? No. Is it moving forward financially without that piece? It was identified from day one by the commission that the funding should be included in the bill, and that consistently has been ignored. Government has told us that it's moving forward as cost-neutral

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Well, governments and the commission will be in court, and we'll probably be sued by the proponents because we will not be able to.... First and foremost, there is the public registry. To implement we need transitional money. We need implementation money, and we need ongoing O an

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  We have the obligation to create a public registry. We have the obligation to staff and to prepare the staff and to familiarize them with the legislation and the new timelines. The language obligations are also new. In our presentation in 2010, we provided the initial costs. From

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. We do support 100% the NTI submission. With regard to the consultation process, NTI is not presenting anything new. It is what has been on the table and has consistently been ignored by government—

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Just to be clear, industry was not at the table during the negotiating process. Industry directly communicated with government, not with the parties through the process. That needs to be clarified. With regard to NIRB's submission, the commission does not agree with that. We wer

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Yes, thank you. The commission is critically underfunded, and this is something that should be known by this committee. To give you a bit of the background, in the absence of our implementation contract, we're coming into our next 10 years. This has been a 10-year period witho

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I'll answer that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe that right now the NIRB, the water board, and the commission have an effective working relationship. The identification of roles and responsibilities and the one-window approach is the key here of how a proponent enters into the

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I would ask that we reserve the right, but I would ask that my colleague, Mr. Boyd, be able to speak to the amendments that are being proposed.

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  That's okay. It's Ehaloak.

February 5th, 2013Committee meeting

Sharon Ehaloak