Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

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

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for being here this morning.

No doubt this is a very important piece of legislation for the people of the Northwest Territories. Obviously it's been a long time in coming, and all of us, as parliamentarians, want to see that any implementation process is going to be done properly, to ensure the greatest benefits to the people of that area.

I think it's fair to say that part 1 of the bill, aimed at creating a new Northwest Territories act, had unanimous support throughout the Northwest Territories, not just from residents and government but from aboriginal governments as well.

Where we're seeing some concerns being raised here is with the second piece of the bill, which proposes the amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, and more importantly, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

We know there are concerns being expressed. They are coming from local aboriginal governments and communities, like the Gwich'in, who have expressed some very vocal, almost hostile, concerns with regard to the changes.

My question is this. Are you concerned that, by trying to wedge the changes into the land and water boards—which are not necessarily directly related to devolution, but are in this bill—you could be losing the consensus you have there?

As well, does it concern you that you would not have that consensus with the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories in implementing this?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You raise an important question and one of concern, of course, to us and to the government.

The way we read the complaints or the concerns expressed, I want to make it clear that this proposal of this single board for the entire territory is not new. I have the Tlicho agreement in front of me, for example. Chapter 22.4, entitled “Land and Water Board for Larger Area”, says in 22.4.1:

Where legislation establishes any other land and water board with jurisdiction in an area larger than, but including Wek’èezhìi...it shall...

So it was always in the window with each and every one of those aboriginal governments that one day there could be this larger board. What was important was that we guaranteed that the proportionality of their representation on the board would be respected. It is in the act. For example, the Tlicho have the power to appoint their own member, because that is in their comprehensive land claim agreement. So we were very concerned about respecting the legal obligations.

I have met with those groups and I was surprised. When I met one group in particular, they were all in agreement, and then I read in the paper that they were not. But I respect that. In order to alleviate the concern, we have brought in modification, as I stated earlier. For example, when there is an application within a territory, which a smaller committee of three could deal with, the chairman will ensure that one member of that group in that territory is on the panel of three to make sure that the concerns and views of that particular aboriginal government or group are taken into account.

That is an accommodation we have made to try to alleviate the concern. But I understand. I would say “between you and I”, but there are too many here. The concern there is the number of jobs that this will affect, because they will lose some employment in the region because of this. You're going to have a leaner board with 11 members. It will unfortunately affect certain jobs, but what has to be looked at are the benefits, maybe, of the sure development that will take place because you have a predictable, efficient, effective regime in place that is bound to attract investment.

For example, when you look at certain studies and the resistance of investors because of the regulatory regime, you'll see that the Northwest Territories has to have a regulatory system competitive to Nunavut and the Yukon, and I think we have achieved it here.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

My next question comes from discussions I had with ministers and the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who expressed the urgency of having the devolution agreement in place so they could move forward. However, they also expressed concerns and had some amendments that they would like to see on a go forward basis, but they certainly did not want to see the bill delayed.

In light of that I would ask if you've given consideration to actually dividing the bill so that we could move forward with the first piece of it where there is consensus and where it seems that people are happy with the language and the way the agreement is worded. I wonder if the minister would entertain that.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Absolutely, this could have happened, but the plan was for this devolution to take place in 2015. Had we stuck to the original calendar and timeline, indeed you would probably have had two bills before you over a period of time.

But since the Government of the Northwest Territories and the premier asked the government to speed up the process, there was one condition to our acceptance of accelerating devolution and it was that we accomplish regulatory reform. This was because the action plan was in place, the work had started in 2010, and it was agreed with the government that regulatory reform would accompany the exercise. April is quickly coming, and that's why we felt the best way to achieve both objectives was to have all of the provisions in one bill because they are so important in relation to each other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn to Mr. Strahl now for the next seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I think we've had about seven meetings and you've been at three of them. We like that percentage.

I would like to continue in the vein you were just going with the red tape reduction. Basically we're reacting to economic indicators that indicate the Northwest Territories is perhaps under a regulatory regime that isn't that attractive to investment, which in a resource-based economy can certainly be very difficult. Can you perhaps contrast the current regime in the Northwest Territories with the rest of Canada's north, and maybe talk about why improving that is so crucial to economic development in the Territories?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Let's take an objective analysis of the situation and look at the Auditor General's assessment of the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories. The Auditor General was clear and unequivocal that the current regulatory regime was a barrier to the further economic development, the tapping, and the unlocking of the enormous potential of the Northwest Territories.

When we talk about the Northwest Territories, we're not talking just about world-class gold and diamond mines, but about the underexplored regions that have very high resource potential. But investors— and this is borne out by the statements of industry and experts—will not invest in an area where there's not certainty that ensures that they can enter a regulatory process that will bring about results in a certain time frame. These are investor dollars. Right now when you look at Yukon and when you look at what we'll have in Nunavut but not in the Northwest Territories, you have an imbalance. Why should we leave the Northwest Territories' residents with a regulatory system that is disadvantageous to the full economic development of their territory?

I think this is a no-brainer. If we really want devolution to be successful—and the success will be measured by improving the standard of living of all residents of the Northwest Territories—we need to have this regulatory change.

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

Thank you.

Can you maybe talk about some of the specific and tangible benefits after the implementation of devolution and regulatory improvement? How will life change for folks in the Northwest Territories? Specifically, waking up the day it all comes into effect, how will they benefit from it?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The transfer of authority over land and resources is the single most significant transfer of province-like jurisdiction to the people of the Northwest Territories, and upon devolution, the government of the territory, in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal parties, will determine the pace and nature of non-renewable resource development in the territory.

The Government of the Northwest Territories itself estimates that employment opportunities from devolution alone will result in over $20 million in spinoff benefits for the Northwest Territories. After devolution, the Government of the Northwest Territories will have the authority to levy and collect resource royalties and will retain a net fiscal benefit from resource development. This will provide a brand new source of revenue to the Government of the Northwest Territories and will be in addition to the transfer payment the government receives from the federal government under the territorial formula financing program. So now with this, northerners will determine how, when, and where to utilize these new revenues.

I will end with this. The Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal parties have agreed to share a portion of these new revenues, and thus the benefits will accrue to all residents of the Northwest Territories, aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

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

I take it from that answer then that you would strongly disagree with Mr. Bevington's statement that resource development doesn't do anything to reduce poverty.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Yes, absolutely. I don't know where he took that one from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is it the practice of this committee to allow other members to put words in committee members' mouths?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It seems to be the practice in politics and Parliament generally—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

—on all sides. That isn't a point of order, but it certainly will come up in debate.

Ms. Crowder, we'll turn to you now for five minutes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

Just to be on the record, I also want to correct Mr. Leef's statement. The NDP supports the devolution aspect of this legislation. The challenge for us is the inclusion of the changes in the MVRMA.

You quoted from the Tlicho Agreement, so I'd like to quote from the Tlicho letter of July 12, 2013. In this letter they said:

The Tlicho Agreement cannot be interpreted to say that Canada, on its own volition, can force the larger board into existence.

Later on, they talk about ministerial authority:

The proposal to expand the Minister's role and authority is not provided for in the Tlicho Agreement. As such, it is an attempt by Canada to use 22.4.1 as a “Trojan horse” to fundamentally revise not only the structure of the Boards but also the powers of the federal Minister therein. The expansion and entrenchment of authority by one Party of its own powers, all without a proper negotiation, will fundamentally impact our carefully negotiated constitutionally protected rights and have profound impacts on our way of life. We have not agreed to any such expansion of federal Ministerial power. Nor have we had any reasonable engagement with Canada to have our interests incorporated into the legislative proposal on Ministerial powers.

In that light, I'd like to refer to proposed subsection 50.1(1) in clause 131 of the bill, concerning the minister's binding policy directions on land-use plans. In the briefing notes that were provided with regard to policy direction, it says:

The federal Minister may, after consultation with a planning board, give written policy directions...

and so on.

With regard to this, it seems like a pretty broad policy that the minister will now be able to unilaterally impose, and this would include things like relevant Treasury Board Secretariat policies, new technologies, and roles and responsibilities related to aboriginal consultation. Can you tell me why those kinds of ministerial powers were entrenched in this legislation?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

With regard to the 10- or 12-page letter that you referred to and quoted from, I read it with care. Of course, I fully respect the view of the aboriginal government in question, but the fact remains that the board contemplated by this bill is expressly provided for under the agreement.

Now, when you talk about the policy direction to align with the Tlicho government's law-making powers or Tlicho lands, the minister must consult the Tlicho government prior to issuing policy direction to the Mackenzie Valley environmental impact review board, and that will be done.

So they are protected there, because they will be consulted.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Well, forgive me minister, but the record on consultation hasn't been stellar.

I want to turn to another point. Under the 2010 Northwest Territories environmental audit, there was an observation in here that the department, called INAC at the time, had not fulfilled its mandate under the MVRMA to implement an effective cumulative impact monitoring program; that it had been chronically underfunded and under-resourced; and that community capacity building and environmentally monitoring programs were largely occurring on a one-off basis.

In this new proposed legislation, of course the MVRMA will remain a federal piece of legislation and will just be delegating the powers. Do you contemplate the Northwest Territories having the federal government provide the resources to do this cumulative monitoring?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

What is contemplated under these amendments is implementing the devolution agreement that has been reached with the Northwest Territories. And when it comes to the issue of resources, of course subject to Parliament approving those, the resources will be provided as the government, as Canada, has undertaken in the agreement to be responsible for the cost of all of these boards.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

But that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You have about 10 seconds left.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'm asking specifically about resources for the cumulative monitoring. Will the resources be provided? That was 2010. That was three years ago. Has money flowed, and will it continue to flow?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Let me see the view of my officials.

I'm informed that indeed, on your specific questions about cumulative impact monitoring, that we committed to ongoing funding in 2010. This program will be transferred to the Government of the Northwest Territories.