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

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. In our jurisdiction, we always have to get the nod from the chair to be able to open our mouth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're a bit more of free-flowing here. Until I cut you off, you're good to go.

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

I did notice the free-flow. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, all of the involved parties and partners were aware of the process. There is some debate over some of the particulars relating to the regulatory side, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. But on the intent to go forward, it was clear that we were going to come up with a way to do both because there are a lot of links, and one was a priority for us, one was a priority for the federal government. Once again, this is the bill that is now before this House.

Thank you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

When it comes to the role of the commissioner in this affair of devolution—and I had the minister saying that he did not consider it—what was the Government of the Northwest Territories' position on the role of the commissioner, going into these negotiations?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The member has raised that issue. We've had our legal folks look at the issue in its full context, within the reading of the role of the commissioner and the context of the bill before this House. It's our determination, which we'd be happy to share with the member, that the role of the commissioner in the Northwest Territories is going to be on a par and comparable with the role of the commissioner either in Yukon or Nunavut. As I said, we'd be happy to share that analysis.

Thank you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That means you don't consider it important that any written instructions given to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories be shared with the executive council? Is that the position of your lawyers?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Mr. Chairman, I don't necessarily want to debate this point unless it's the will of the committee.

We have two pages of legal analysis dealing with that particular issue within the context of the mandates of other commissioners in the other territories, the wording and what's required, including the fact there was wording in the Yukon Government that lapsed after 10 years, and that we are taking on that same responsibility. There's a whole host of detail where you need the context as opposed to that one particular issue.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Could we be privy to that information?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, we'd be happy to share that analysis with the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for your attendance today and your presentation. I have one quick comment and then a question.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that this is a natural political evolution, and I had asked the minister about that. First, I'd like to just congratulate you on getting this far. It's been something that's been in the works for such a long time. You talked about the consensus government and the consensus culture in the Northwest Territories. I think that's certainly something that is admirable and it's really a neat model for a system of government in Canada and for Canadians to look to and be proud of. I personally see the devolution agreement as political evolution. We, as northerners, know and can appreciate that consensus government and a consensus culture get misunderstood as somehow not evolved. We recently heard the leader of the Liberal Party compare the government operations of the territories to municipalities, and I think that's a real shame that there isn't an appreciation for the contributions we can make to a national discussion and, indeed, positive models of running government.

But that aside, when we're talking about entering into this devolution agreement, you did mention that you're looking forward to the next stages already before we've signed on to this one. But your forward-thinking in here, I think, is appropriate. You talked about moving and looking forward to the five-year review process. Can you maybe just touch on the confidence you feel in the fact there is a five-year review to this, and perhaps the sense of the stakeholders and partners you're involved with in the aboriginal communities—how they are feeling about the security and safety, that there is a five-year review and that the regulatory processes that are coming along with this can adapt and change and flow with the changing times and business and priorities of the people of the Northwest Territories?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the question from the member.

I will just quickly give you a sense of scale of how long this has been in the works. There have been different numbers used, but we use the target date of 1967, when we became an official government and the plane came north from Ottawa with the commissioner and the few staff who were moving north with him. I was 16 years old at the time and, sitting before you in this committee, I'm now 62. If we're not ready now, I don't think we'll ever be ready. We are a persistent people. We're diligent and we're relentless in our pursuit, like every other Canadian in political self-determination.

The five-year period is part of the negotiations. There are issues that have to be monitored to see how the agreement is working. We're going to be listening to feedback from the aboriginal governments, from industry, and from northerners. There are some other issues we want to keep track of: the role of the minister that we talked about today and, as the premier indicated in the Senate as well, the issue of board appointments.

We're of the opinion, of course, that we are more than capable of managing that particular aspect of the regulatory process. All those are tied to that five-year period. We're going to be very busy, going flat out in the next 115 days. We have about 27 bills to pass in mirror legislation. We're going to be working hard on implementation going forward both on the devolution piece and in the year we have to get ready to do the regulatory changes. We're going to be doing that, and it's going to be seamless. We're not going to miss a beat. But we're going to be monitoring, along with the federal government and our aboriginal partners. We're going to see how this evolves, how the implementation works, and we're all going to be taking notes because we want to improve the system. As was raised earlier, it's not an absolute, carved-in-stone agreement. It's one that I expect all parties will consider to be something of a living document as we get good at this and as we sort out, as we take our place at the table, what needs to be adjusted down the road.

Thank you.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

The member from Western Arctic raised a couple of good questions. I was going to, in fact, ask him if he was checking them off with, you know, rationale for the acceleration of the timeline and whether or not that acceleration had been supported by your key partners. In your opinion, how is the Government of Canada been in terms of being responsive to the acceleration? When you brought that forward, how was that received? How well do you feel the needs of your government and the needs of your partners have been met in accommodating this accelerated timeline?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was an agreement early on between Prime Minister Harper and Premier McLeod at our request. Because of the urgency and our political timelines, an agreement in principle was signed.

Last year at the previous assembly, the 16th assembly, we could see that if we didn't push hard, this could possibly carry on for another government, with all the risk and uncertainty that poses. So the federal government agreed. There was a negotiation. We worked out an agreement, and the bill that's before the House reflects the outcome of that agreement.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

In the relationship that the government's been able to build, this is quite an experience for the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories, as well as our aboriginal partners, to get involved in together.

With that relationship developed now, are you confident that the Government of Canada is ready and able to respond to the five-year review that will come up sooner rather than later? It seems like a long way down the road, but it's wise to talk about these things now, because five years can go by rather quickly.

Please give us your thoughts on whether you think the relationship is strong and solid, and one that will support productive talks when the five-year review comes up.

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, the two governments, the Government of Canada and the territorial government, worked hard collectively. Both parties have devoted enormous resources. We've redeployed resources in a time of fiscal restraint at all levels of government to meet the target, to meet these critical political goals for the people in the Northwest Territories and the Government of the Northwest Territories.

In the last number of years, Premier McLeod and Prime Minister Harper have developed a very close working relationship, and this is always the first thing to be discussed whenever they meet and talk, which is on a regular basis.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Ms. Jones, we'll turn to you now for the next questions.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for appearing before our committee today. It's a pleasure to have you here with your deputy. I'm sure you've worked very hard to get to the point you are at today.

You heard my question to the minister with regard to the bill being in two phases and whether government had considered the separation of those two components into two separate bills. If the bill were separated at this point, would that have an impact on the timeline for devolution for the Northwest Territories?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

I'm not fully knowledgeable about the federal law-making system, but if a bill of this significance and size were taken back and put into two pieces, I believe it would absolutely have an impact. That's only based on experience in the Northwest Territories, but I know that if you take a bill before the House and then take it back and want to make it into two separate bills, then there's a process that kicks into gear for the new bill.

The other point I'd like to make is that we have worked with the Government of Canada. We've come to an agreement. We've gone through a process. We've done our work collectively at the territorial level. We now know we have to come into the federal system. The bill that's before you is supported by both governments because it reflects the concerns and aspirations of those governments and the people of the Northwest Territories.

Yes, there are some questions. There's bound to be in a bill of this size. But we are intent on having this pass so that we can take the next step. We'll work out the things that need to be worked out, but we can't do that unless this bill is passed. So it's absolutely critical for us as a next step in our political evolution.

Thank you.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Okay.

A lot of our discussions this morning in committee with the minister had to do with the changes and the management of the Water Board. Do you feel that the concerns that have been expressed by the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territory are warranted?

Second, do you feel that they are concerns that should be resolved in order for your government to move forward with devolution?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can we do this? I believe we can.

There was a comprehensive claim back in the eighties, where at one point all of the aboriginal governments—the first nations and the Métis—except the Inuvialuit, were going to do a comprehensive claim. At some point, the concept of a large unified board was in there. Every claim and every settlement, as Minister Valcourt has indicated, reflects that potential possibility.

The fact of the matter is that aboriginal governments have had regional boards for some time. There is definitely a comfort level there. Is it going to be an issue that requires work and discussion? Absolutely. Should we hit the pause button until we have that particular issue sorted out? In our opinion, no. If this government waited to make sure that every i was dotted and every t was crossed and that there was happiness across the land on every particular issue, progress would be very slow.

It was the same with devolution when we signed the agreement. We had initially only two aboriginal governments sign on, but we persevered. There were many who said to hit the pause button, “Don't do it. Let's stop. Let's talk.” There comes a time in the affairs of all of us when we have to make those decisions. I think that the key is to forge ahead and build consensus as you go.

As the premier has indicated, we devolve and then we will continue to evolve. We'll work through these issues.

Thank you.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Obviously the urgency of having this done is very evident from your comments this morning.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, I asked a minister a question in regard to the financial resources to do the implementation of the agreement. He outlined a number of pieces that would be financed through federal transfers.

One of the concerns I have is, when the devolution was done for the Yukon Territory, the Auditor General reported in his 2003 report that they had underestimated the resources that were needed to complete the work.

My question is this. We can't always predict. We do estimates. We run numbers, budgets, and so on. Is there some contingency built into the agreement that, if the resources are not there to do the implementation properly, there is room to advance that with the federal government?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

We've negotiated transitional money. We've negotiated $67.3 million into our A-base to take over all the functions. We're getting resource royalties sharing for the first time. We're about 115 days away from implementation day on April 1. We've been managing with the money we have, and we're going to get to the finish line with those resources. There's also money in the budget for transitional support to aboriginal governments as well as ongoing support to aboriginal governments.

The issue came up earlier and perhaps I will just throw this in, that we are also taking over the cumulative impacts monitoring program. We've negotiated three and a half million dollars a year to assist us in doing that. That will be incorporated into the work we already do as a government on our own impact studies on water and on all the other things we do. This will allow us better economies of scale.

Could we use more? Were we badgered and pilloried by some folks for not holding out for more? Absolutely. But once again, there comes a point, after literally decades of negotiating, when we have to move, and that's what we're doing. We're confident that we will manage and will manage well with the resources we have.

I want to point out that we already have a AA1 credit rating as a jurisdiction. We have one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios in the country. We are very well run financially and will continue to be.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

It's clear to me that the people of the Northwest Territories, and indeed all of Canada, will look upon the 17th session of your assembly and your leadership and that of Premier McLeod in the future as a historic time for not only the Northwest Territories but all of Canada.

I want to congratulate you on the negotiation and on coming to this achievement that we've realized in Bill C-15. Here in Ottawa we can go through legislation and it maybe doesn't create much of a ripple here, but this is an enormous achievement for your government, for your people, and obviously wouldn't have happened without the driving force of your premier and people like you.

I did want to talk about the regulatory improvement component of the bill. I understand that the GNWT and the NWT Chamber of Mines recently released a paper on mining strategy, which included a recommendation to move ahead with regulatory improvements. I asked this of the Minister, Mr. Valcourt, as well. How do you think that regulatory improvement will in fact improve the investment climate or the economic climate in the Northwest Territories?