Committee agreed?

Agreed. Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, if I could get you to escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Minister McLeod, if I could please get you to introduce your witnesses into the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have with me today to my left, Mr. Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Municipal and Community Affairs; Ms. Bev Chamberlin, director of lands administration; and, Mr. Mark Aitken, director of legislation division with the Department of Justice. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Are there any general comments to the opening remarks? Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did have issue with regard to the need for the abrogation and derogation clause. I think it’s important to realize that this type of legislation does have an overarching effect on land claim agreements. Lands have been designated for Indian branch lands or IAB lands, better known.

We have reserves in the Northwest Territories. We also have claims that have lands within the specific boundaries that were negotiated in comprehensive claims which are called municipal lands within the confines of municipalities. I think, as we have learned, it’s very difficult to try to imply or basically build a house in the Northwest Territories when it comes to IAB lands or, for that matter, block land transfers in communities to either expand your boundaries which will encroach on land claims lands adjacent to communities or along the boundaries of communities regardless if it’s in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b) lands, or rural and hinterlands in the land claim areas.

Mr. Chair, I think it’s imperative that we do realize that this legislation will have a direct effect on the land claim agreements, the Indian branch lands in those municipalities and the status that they flow through, through the Indian Affairs branch in Ottawa. We’ve realized through self-government and land claim arrangements that are in place, the Aboriginal people will have land management authorities within those municipalities and the lands they will use for self-government reasons. You can’t be short-sighted to assume we will put this in another act later on.

We are discussing the Wildlife Act in this House, hopefully in the next couple of days. In there, there is also an abrogation and derogation clause. Several other pieces of legislation have come through this House with abrogation and derogation clauses. So the reason that the Minister has given is not comforting to me, the people I represent or the claimant groups in the Northwest Territories. I think it’s very important that we ensure the legislation we pass through this House does recognize the constitutionality of Section 35 with regard to land claims, treaty rights, and Aboriginal rights in Canada.

As a Legislature, we have that obligation and we must ensure that that is implied in whatever legislation we put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I know we gave the Minister the opportunity and the benefit of the doubt to consider such an amendment in the drafting of this legislation and by going clause by clause, but it was refused by Cabinet. I will be requesting that we reinstate that wording at some point.

I would just like to ask the Minister, for the sake of time and consideration, that you do take into consideration all these elements that I’ve raised and mentioned regarding the land claims agreements, municipal lands in communities, IAB lands and a requirement for those lands in communities, if anything happens you have to have a band council resolution which has to be agreed to by the band council to have any activities take place on those lands. Also, that those lands are held with special types of protection under the treaties and under the Indian treaties and under the Indian Act in Ottawa.

I would just like to know why it is that you have not taken those considerations into effect when we decide to pass this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did take a look at the proposed motion by the Member back in May and then we have gotten legal advice, and our position is it’s basically telling us we have to obey the law.

My understanding of Aboriginal or treaty rights is they cannot be extinguished or abrogated by a legislative act. I think we all know there are only two ways to extinguish or abrogate Aboriginal or treaty rights, and one is with the consent of the Aboriginal party in the form of a modern day treaty, and the other one is an amendment to the Constitution. So we believe that the Aboriginal land claims are federal legislation and, in our opinion, would take precedence over territorial legislation. There is nothing we can do to abrogate or derogate from the Aboriginal rights. Thank you.

As a land claims negotiator with the Dene/Metis claim process, the Gwich’in, the Sahtu, my main obligation was to do the land selection. Municipal land selections in the Sahtu and the Gwich’in and also in the Dene/Metis claim were a very strategic part of those land claim agreements. Lands were selected in the communities in the Sahtu, in the Gwich’in Settlement Region, for specific special purposes. They were used for rural lands, hinterlands, commercial lands, residential. Again, there was a lot of time and effort put into selecting lands in communities for these type of purposes, so that in the future there will be lands in those communities and there will be certain aspects that will apply to these lands which are unique compared to other lands in the community such as exempted lands from taxes where you don’t have to pay taxes on certain lands if you don’t develop the properties.

With this legislation imposing these plans, whether it’s subdivisions or looking at consideration of a new residential area and imposing that on the claimant groups where they may not have an interest in developing those lands for those particular purposes but not being consulted prior to the plans to be concluded, totally undermines the whole reason for getting lands in communities in the first place through land claim agreements.

The same thing applies to lands in a lot of the communities which still exist by way of Indian branch lands. The Housing Corporation should know, and as the Minister of the Housing Corporation, how hard it really is to get land developed in our communities on IAB lands because of the special and unique status that that land has. You have to get a band council resolution from the particular band by way of a motion to do anything with those lands. Those lands still retain the status of Indian branch lands well over the life of the House.

I think it’s that type of situation we are in here. We can’t lose sight that you are imposing a piece of legislation that would have direct implications on those lands, and those communities and those groups are not the municipal councils of these communities. The bands are not the municipal governments in those communities or regions.

I think it’s imperative that you look at this and also take into consideration, in light of the reasons that I give. Thank you.

Whatever the land claim groups, present or future, settle, we intend to abide by it. We are not proposing to change anything within the land claim groups. It’s just enabling the communities to make these decisions and not imposing on anybody. Thank you.

Again, as we all know, most community planners and people that basically make these decisions don’t come from the communities.

Most of the decisions are made at the regional...or Yellowknife on how those plans are going to be imposed and developed. How can you, without having the wording in this legislation, ensure that they take that into consideration and just assume that somebody understands the land claim agreements or somebody understands that you do have the unique situations that I mentioned? So without having the wording in this agreement, you are assuming that hiring somebody from southern Canada and coming in as a lands officer in a community will know that land claims agreements exist. But by mentioning it in the legislation, those rights will have to be considered when you look at the planning act and consider those types of developments taking place when you’re implementing this type of legislation. Thank you.

The department has no more community planners within the regional offices. Most of the community planning is done within the communities themselves, and if they do have someone that they bring from outside the community, I’m sure the community will school them quite quickly on the land claims. Because it’s our intent, and I think it’s been proven in the past, that all departments take the land claims quite seriously and there’s a consultation process that needs to take place in any decisions that may have an effect on the land claims. But again I point out the fact that the land claims are federal legislation and nothing that we do in this act will extinguish any rights at all. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of questions along the same line of questioning as Mr. Krutko. In the communities what I’m being told by some of the homeowners that are now elders that originally go about to construct their homes on what they’re referring to as treaty land and may be legally called Indian Affairs branch lands but referred to as treaty land, I’m wondering if there was a process at some point where the federal government transferred their lands to the GNWT, and if there was a process, when did this process take place. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Chamberlin.

Mr. Chairman, I have two separate situations where I’m dealing with land, and there’s an elder in a HAP unit that was built on what

was essentially her cousin’s land where a unit that was constructed by the Department of Indian Affairs prior to any units being constructed for use by the NWT Housing Corporation. In essence, I’m talking about the Northern Territorial Rental Program, which was actually constructed under a program called Eskimo and Indian Housing. It goes back a long way. These other units were constructed in the late ’50s and early to mid-‘60s and they were homes that were issued to treaty Indians. This home is now considered part of Commissioner’s land, and the elder, although I don’t think she pays taxes, is required to do so. But this is not a tax issue. This is an issue of trying to figure out the process of how that occurred.

I’m just going to give you the second scenario, as well, Mr. Chairman, so that I can have something more recent. I have very recently dealt with a lease, a municipal lease or a land lease or, I’m sorry, maybe it’s a tax. But anyways, the lease or taxes that are paid to the GNWT on an annual basis. However, there was an indication that that unit was sitting on that same piece of land prior to 1980, and the land was then referred to Indian Affairs branch land. I’m just wondering if the department is aware of how that occurred.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister McLeod.

The Member’s questions are valid. As far as the Community Planning Act, I’m not sure how it fits in. To be quite honest, I’m not well aware of the situation the Member is speaking of, but we will have a look at it and see how all this occurred and we’ll communicate that to the Member.

It’s just my concern that when any act is passed that pertains to the town planning and any community planning and development, if it refers to land, then I would like to know that the Aboriginal governments that have not settled land claims yet, as Ms. Chamberlin said, Akaitcho, that they be afforded the full potential for obtaining lands under their land claim within the municipal boundaries and those were referring to those pieces of land as Indian Affairs branch land. But I’m aware that over a period of the last several years or even a few decades, that those lands have slowly transferred from the federal government to the territorial government, and so that the Minister said he would look into it, I am satisfied with that but I just wanted to provide more context to my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. More of a comment for clarification, but I’ll go to the Minister anyway. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Aumond. I don’t have anybody else on my list for general comments. What is the wish of committee? If it’s agreed, no further general comments. We will go to clause-by-clause review of the bill. The clause-by-clause review starts on page 9. Clause 1. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move a motion that Bill 7 is amended by adding the following after section 1:

1.1 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

(2) An action or thing authorized by this act

must be carried out in accordance with any applicable land claims agreement.

(3) If there is a conflict or an inconsistency

between a provision of this act or the regulations a provision of a land claims agreement or legislation approving, giving effect to and declaring valid a land claims agreement, the provision of the land claims agreement or legislation prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.