Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to address your committee today on four bills which contain proposed amendments to legislation for quarrying in NWT communities; amendments that will help to remove any uncertainty with the existing wording in our municipal legislation and in the Commissioner's Land Act.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I need to advise you that these legislative amendments are quite unusual in one sense, due to the retroactivity provisions contained in the bills. I will try to explain the particular circumstances that justify this legislative approach. However, apart from the retroactivity aspect, I trust that I will also be able to demonstrate that the additional clauses in the bills are not otherwise controversial and are designed simply to clarify the status quo concerning quarrying in communities.

It is also very important to note, Mr. Chairman, that these bills do not impact in any way on aboriginal or treaty rights, existing land claims agreements or any ongoing negotiations relating to aboriginal rights.

At this time, I would like to provide the committee with a brief overview as to why these legislative amendments are not being proposed. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Chairman, that every NWT community has at least one local quarry that is used to provide sand, gravel or some other type of granular material. This granular material is essential in our northern climate for most construction projects, especially to provide insulation against the permafrost.

Historically, the local public quarries were managed by the communities on an informal basis. However, as the communities grew and the scale of development increased, there arose a need for an administrative system to address competing interests between the needs of the government, building contractors and local residents.

The GNWT created the Commissioner's Land Act and regulations in 1969, and, around about the same time, also developed municipal legislation for the operations of cities, towns, villages, hamlets and settlements.

In 1988, the GNWT also created legislation for charter communities. Based on this original legislative framework, the GNWT has entered into quarrying leases for quarry administration agreements with many of the large communities. These agreements were designed to formalize the important role of the communities in managing their public quarries at the local level. A number of these communities have been carrying on with these arrangements since 1970. Mr. Chairman, some of our legislation, such as the Commissioner's Land Act, is 25 years old and not as legally up to date as it should be with case law that exists elsewhere in Canada concerning the management of quarries in communities.

It was recently that the GNWT Department of Justice undertook a detailed review of our existing legislation. This was prompted by two ongoing lawsuits directed against the NWT municipality and the Commissioner. The court cases have challenged the validity of certain aspects of our quarry arrangements made between the GNWT and communities. The Department of Justice has recommended that our existing legislation be amended to remove any uncertainty about the past and present authority of GNWT and communities to enter into agreements and leases with respect to quarries and these lands to issue quarry permits and to levy and collect quarry fees and charges.

As a result, the bills confirmed that the communities and the GNWT have and have always had the authority to enter into leases and agreements respecting quarries and land in the communities, and to issue quarry permits.

In addition, the bill amending the Commissioner's Land Act confirms the authority of the GNWT to make regulations respecting quarrying on Commissioner's Land. That bill also expressly validates any quarry fees or charges that were levied by the municipal corporation or a land agent before the bill's introduction.

The fact that those fee-validating provisions, as well as the municipal bills, are to come into force on the date of introduction of first reading, is somewhat unusual. This date was chosen to preclude any further lawsuits against municipalities and the GNWT with respect to the past quarry operations that might otherwise be encouraged by any publicity generated by the introductions of these bills.

I want to stress that there is no attempt being made here to impose any retroactive penalties on quarry operators. Virtually all these quarry operators have been properly following the quarry rules set out in each municipality, with full knowledge of the local quarry administration system.

These bills will simply confirm that all of these local rules are within the legal capacity of the municipal corporation, are thus validated.

Mr. Chairman, nothing in these bills will detract from allowing committee of the whole and the Legislative Assembly to have a full and thorough examination of these amendments. These bills will not come into effect unless they receive the approval of the Assembly at third reading, in the normal process followed then by assent from the Commissioner. However, if and when this final approval does occur, then the effective commencement date of the municipal legislation and the fee-validating provisions of the bill amending the Commissioner's Land Act would be as of April 1994, the date of first reading for the reasons that I have just mentioned regarding possible new court challenges.

I want to assure you that these amendments are not an initiative to significantly alter the intent of any of the existing arrangements between the GNWT and the communities concerning local quarries. Most importantly, there is no attempt on our part to prejudice aboriginal or treaty rights in existing land claims agreements or any outstanding aboriginal claims negotiations. Aboriginal rights are protected under the Constitution Act, 1982, which is superior to any act of the Northwest Territories.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that despite the unusual retroactive provisions of these bills, they are simply a matter of making the existing legislation more explicit with regard to quarrying in communities. These bills clearly need to be addressed in this upcoming session, and I hope that your committee will look favourably on the intent and wording of these legislative amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I will now be prepared to answer any detailed questions that you or Members may have on the proposed bills. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Minister. As per procedure for review of bills, I will now recognize the chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation, Mr. Gargan.

Standing Committee on Legislation Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, because the bills are all similar with regard to granular material, I will be just making one statement addressing all four bills.

I will speak loud at times in order to startle the Members to stay awake.

The Standing Committee on Legislation has completed its review of bills 9 to 12; An Act to Amend the Charter Communities Act, An Act to Amend the Hamlets Act, An Act to Amend the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, and an Act to Amend the Commissioner's Land Act. Each of bills 9, 10 and 11 amend the legislation in exactly the same way.

The standing committee held public hearings in Yellowknife on September 9, 1994. The only presentation heard towards each proposed amendment was received from the city of Yellowknife, although all municipalities, band councils and tribal councils were notified about the pending amendments back in April, 1996; I'm sorry, 1994.

The amendments to the legislations are being proposed to validate the quarry fees and charges that have been levied by municipalities to protect the current practice of municipalities with regard to the administration of quarries which the government has delegated to them.

Almost every community in the Northwest Territories has at least one local quarry that provides sand, gravel or other granular material. The legislation governing municipalities in the Northwest Territories is old and recent court cases have challenged the validity of certain aspects of the quarry arrangements between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the communities.

The Department of Justice recommended that the existing legislation be amended to remove any uncertainty about the authority of the government to enter into agreements and leases with communities with respect to quarries. The proposed amendments intend to confirm that the government has and always has had the authority to enter into leases and agreements respecting quarries with communities.

Municipalities derive all of their powers from the statutory base. Without the expressed authorization to operate a quarry, it might be possible that someone would argue that the municipality did not have the legal authority to operate the quarry.

Further, the amendments come into force on the day of the first reading to preclude any further law suits with respect to past quarry operations. The Minister assures this committee that the arrangement does not modify any land claims. The committee is concerned, however, that this is the second time in a two-year period that the committee has reviewed amendments to the various municipal legislation. The committee is not convinced that the piecemeal review of the legislation is a profound way of ensuring that the legislation we have in place is the best it can be.

Given the age of the legislation and the implementation of various land claims, the committee suggests that the government review the legislation as a whole with a view to bringing it up to date. On September 9, 1994, the committee passed a motion that bills 9 to 12 were ready for consideration in committee of the whole.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. I am informed that the Minister for MACA has mentioned, in her opening remarks, all of the four bills, so we will now proceed to the next one. Would the Minister like to bring the witnesses before we open the general comments.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Do we have the concurrence of the committee that the Minister will bring in the witnesses?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Proceed, Sergeant-at-Arms. Would you please bring in the witnesses. For the record, Madam Minister, would you introduce the witnesses to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, on my left is Shawn Flynn, legislative council from the Department of Justice. On my far right is Richard Ashton, senior land advisor and on my immediate right is my deputy minister, David Ramsden.

Thank you. We are dealing with Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Charter Communities Act. We will speak to the specific bill and once the general comments and the bill have been dealt with, we will move on to the next bill. The floor is now open for general comments from the Members. Mr. Arvaluk.

General Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we proceed with Bill 9, I would like to ask a general question. I just need clarification of the committee report. I'm just a little confused about the last paragraph of the committee's report. I want to be very clear as to how we deal with Bill 9. This part is confusing me a little bit. On the last page, given the age of the legislation and the implementation of various land claims, the committee suggests that the government review the legislation as a whole with a view to bringing it up to date. In other words, do I understand that because this bill is not legislation as a whole, but rather some amendment to the existing legislation. In the next paragraph, it's stated that the committee passed a motion that bills 9 to 12 were ready for consideration in committee of the whole.

It seems confusing to me because maybe I don't understand the procedure here. If I was asking the government to review the legislation as a whole, I would not recommend bills 9 to 12 to be ready for consideration in committee of the whole. Can I have clarification from the chairman before we proceed?

Thank you. Perhaps the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation could try to provide clarification to Mr. Arvaluk's question.

Mr. Chairman, what was the...Did you direct the question to me or to...

---Recording Difficulties

Thank you. It is my understanding that the committee is making a suggestion to the government to amend the existing legislation on bills 9, 10, 11 and 12. We are now reviewing these bills at this point. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, rather than repeating my presentation four times on the same amendments for each of the bills, I've decided since all the amendments are the same that I'll report all the bills that address the amendments that effect all those individual bills with regard to quarries.

The other thing that I just wanted to mention to Mr. Arvaluk is that we just had municipal acts during the last session. Again, in order to address the legal issue, the Minister had to come up with new amendments. Every time there is a problem, the department comes to the standing committee to amend those small problems that are popping up. The suggestion here is that the Minister should come up with a more up-to-date review of the whole act so we are not continuously piecemealing the sections to satisfy the department.

Thank you. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mean the committee is requesting the government to come up with a new bill, after the amendments have been passed for these bills, from Bill 9 to Bill 12. Are you asking them, after these bills are passed, to put together all of this legislation to bring it up- to-date? As long as I have that understanding, I have no problem in dealing with the amendments. Qujannamiik.

Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, we are requesting the department to do that; to have a comprehensive review of all the municipal bills, so that we don't run into the problem of continuously having to deal with small amendments to all of these acts.

Thank you. General comments regarding Bill 9. Do we agree to go clause by clause?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause By Clause

Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Charter Communities Act. Clause 1.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 2.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 4. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, although the act is straightforward and deals with the whole legal issue of who gives the directive to the municipalities or authority in order for them to operate and charge fees to quarries, part of my presentation dealt with aboriginal claimant groups. I would like to satisfy my own constituency and perhaps even the constituencies of people who don't have land claims, and question whether the whole issue of lands, the ownership of land and what is on it, has been addressed. Has the department dealt with what happens to areas in which lands are still in dispute and have never been surrendered by way of land claims? Do you have legal opinions on that?

Thank you. I have to correct myself. After clauses 1 and 2, I asked for agreement of clause 4. It is actually clause 3. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening remarks, I indicated that aboriginal rights are protected under the Constitution Act which is a superior to any act of the Northwest Territories. So, there is protection under the Constitution Act.

Thank you. Mr. Gargan.

In this case, then, if a band has some concerns about areas in which quarries are developed and this is a disputed area, there could be some serious problems for this government.

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I'll let Mr. Flynn respond to that question...

---Recording Difficulties

Mr. Ashton.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think the easy answer to that question is that these bills do not affect the ownership of lands, especially in those areas where the ownership is in dispute. We have a situation where quarries exist in communities and they are being operated. We want to make it very clear that these existing operations are in the capacity of the territorial government, the municipalities or any agent of the government to run.

In the case where there may be lands that are disputed, the ownership is more of a question of where and when quarries should be developed. That is more related to the land application and citing process. The focus of these bills is simply to say that the operations that exist today, and the fees and charges that have been made, were always intended to be legal and we are making it explicit that they are legal.

This is not an attempt to turn over any lands or change the ownership of any lands thereby prejudicing any discussions about land ownership. This is simply recognizing that the quarries are already being operated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Zoe, I think you've been cut off. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I'll let Mr. Ashton respond to Henry Zoe's question.

Mr. Ashton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the statement that Mr. Zoe has made, that before any type of new operations were to be established there should be an agreement entered into by the municipality and the government or the owner of the land, whoever it may be. Again, this is what the focus of this legislation is about, to make sure that the municipality has the explicit legal capacity to enter into that agreement. And then, if it's on Commissioner's land, the Commissioner has the explicit legal capacity to enter into that.

The legislation does not go into the details of what would be contained in that type of an agreement. Historically, what we have encouraged the municipalities and the communities to do is to develop their own rules and procedures and their own quarry administrative system that they would like to see in any such agreement. As it pertains to third parties, we would like to make sure that the municipalities and the communities have the legal capacity to take control of their own local concerns.

So we haven't gotten into that level of detail because we don't see that as a problem with the legislation. Once they have the legal capacity to enter into agreement, it would flow from that that they could set the terms and conditions that best suit their local needs.

Thank you. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Madam Minister. Mr. Ashton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In reply to the question, I think the important thing to realize, in particular with the situation in the Dogrib area where third-party interests and land claims negotiations are under way, is that we do have signed interim protection provisions that relate to any dispositions of land. So this bill does not automatically give the right to a municipality to go and establish a quarry. It gives them the legal capacity to do that, but there's still the next step that they have to approach the land owner and go through a whole land application process. This process is now subject to the interim provisions agreed upon by the Government of Canada, the territorial government and the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council. In that, there's a consultation process to make sure that areas of specific interest to third parties are not given away in claims processes. So we are continuing to operate with that in mind.

Thank you. Clause 3. Mr. Ng.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask, the jurisdiction for establishing operating quarries would go through the municipalities in this case. How about as far as the jurisdiction for quarry fees? Whose jurisdiction...Would that remain with the Department of MACA, or would that go over as well?

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will be with municipalities, and the recoveries are on a cost basis.

Thank you. Member for Kitikmeot.

Thank you. So that jurisdiction is in the existing act, then, I take it. It's not in the amendments.

Madam Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I'll let legal counsel respond to that.

Legal counsel.

The existing fee structures are established under the Commissioner's Land Act. This bill doesn't directly provide for the transmission of that authority to the municipalities. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Ng, are you still with your question here? I will recognize Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Madam Minister, either you or your staff could respond to the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The regulations would have to be changed before we could do that.

Thank you. Clause 3. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like I said, the regulations would have to be changed, but the legislation we have does not allow it now.

Thank you. General comments. Clause 3. Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 4. Mr. Arvaluk.

I need clarification, again. Is clause 4 commencement? Am I right on that one? Mr. Chairman, this act is deemed to come into force on the day this was in first

reading? What will happen after this first reading. You'll still have to still deal with it in second reading. What will happen if there is an amendment made through a formal motion after the first reading?

Madam Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in my opening remarks, I stated the retroactivity of this act coming into force is the fact that our legislation has been challenged through the courts. It is merely to prevent any further losses that would jeopardize our municipalities if we don't do this.

---Recording Difficulties

Thank you. I think Mr. Arvaluk was asking on clause 4, the act would come into force on the first reading of the bill. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand the Minister's concern here. Let's not have any more lawsuits here. This act will just do it perfectly. My question is what about if there is a formal motion amending the...after first reading, is my question.

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it would all depend on what a motion to amend this clause says.

Thank you. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For example, we had a concern from Mr. Zoe, Mr. Gargan and Mr. Ng on the question of authority on the pending claims outside of the municipalities. Right now I don't think we're prepared to make those provisions or clauses to allow the concerns expressed by some Members in this bill. However, after first reading, we might get together -- 15 Members -- and make an amendment that suits some of the municipalities have -- band councils, hamlet councils and the Government of the NWT in one place that may have conflicting interest because of the pending claims to deal with that. To comply with those wishes, then there may be some requirement for amendments which will only be done after the first reading.

I guess that's the scenario or example that the Minister is requesting, depending on what kind of amendment there would be. Is she saying that no matter what kind of amendments we make concerning the citizens of the NWT regarding quarry programs outside the boundaries, that they cannot be changed if they were not coming into effect, because these will be deemed to be into force after the first reading?

Madam Minister. Perhaps I will ask the Law Clerk to explain the commencement of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Until such time as this bill is passed through this House and received assent by the Commissioner, this bill will not be in law. So any amendments that this House chooses to make, they're free to make to the bill. For example, you could change clause 4 to have it come into effect two years from now and obviously that would change this bill. So you can make amendments to this bill until such time as it's passed through the House. When it has passed through the House, however, and receives assent of the Commissioner, the bill will then be retroactive to the day it was given first reading which was April 6, 1994, unless clause 4 is amended. If Members choose to amend clause 4, then that will affect the date that this bill comes into effect.

So there are two different things here, the date that the bill becomes law and the date that it comes into effect. The date that the bill becomes law is the date that it's given assent, but it will then be retroactive and will have effect back to April 6, 1994.

Thank you. Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 4.

Agreed.

---Agreed

The bill as a whole.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Bill as amended. Not amended. Sorry about that. Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Do we agree that we move on to review Bill 10?

Agreed.

---Agreed