Is committee agreed?

Thank you. We will commence with that after a brief break. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to over. We have before us today Bills 1, 2 and 3, starting with Bill 1, Reindeer Act. I’d like to ask Premier McLeod if he would like to deliver his opening comments. Premier McLeod.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Bill 1, the Reindeer Act. The passage of this legislation is an important step towards implementing the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources will administer the Government of the Northwest Territories’ new authorities under the Reindeer Act.

Under the Devolution Agreement, the GNWT is committed to “substantially mirror” Canada’s statutes and regulations that are being repealed or made inapplicable to all land, except federally

retained land, transferring to the GNWT through devolution.

The mirroring exercise means that the new GNWT laws will address the same matters, in substantially the same way, as federal laws do now. Mirroring principles limited changes to addressing issues such as outdated language and applying GNWT drafting standards.

Mirrored legislation is a practical first step to ensure a continued delivery of services on April 1, 2014. Mirrored legislation also ensures that there are no legislative gaps or overlaps between the GNWT and Canada.

The parties to the Devolution Agreement entered into a Protocol for Review of Devolution Legislation Agreement. Under this protocol, all parties have had the opportunity to review and comment on this legislation before it was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. We have considered these comments carefully in the preparation of the bill before you.

The Reindeer Act will provide the Government of the Northwest Territories with the authority to make regulations governing the management and protection of reindeer. The bill also provides the GNWT with the authority to enter into agreements for herding of reindeer.

I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. I will now ask the chair of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning if she could please deliver the committee’s remarks. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has reviewed Bill 1, Reindeer Act.

Pursuant to the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, Bill 1 mirrors the Government of Canada’s Northwest Territories Reindeer Regulations as provided for in the Northwest Territories Act.

This act applies to all matters respecting reindeer that were previously governed by the federal Northwest Territories Act and Northwest Territories Reindeer Regulations.

Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 1 to the Assembly as ready for further consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 1. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. I’d like to ask Premier McLeod if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber.

Yes, I would, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Does committee agree?

Agreed. Thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses to the table.

Premier McLeod, for the record could you please introduce your witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On my right I have Kelly McLaughlin, the director of legislation for the Department of Justice; and to my left I have Jamie Fulford, legal counsel with the Department of Justice.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. General comments. Mr. Dolynny.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to welcome the Premier and staff here today.

With this first bill, this marks the beginning of 10 potential legislations, or 10 legislations that we know of with respect to mirror legislation that will assist in our implementation of devolution. We know that during the clause-by-clause review the question that was asked by a number of Members was why did we not see any type of triggering mechanism formally embedded within this legislation that would force a review of these legislations in due course. An example of what I’m asking is: What prevents us from putting a triggering mechanism for a formal review within a specific time period within all these 10 bills, starting with Bill 1 here, Reindeer Act? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t believe anything prevents this Assembly from putting a triggering mechanism in place. I think there would be some issues if the triggering mechanism would fetter future governments. I think that, as a government, we have committed to undertaking a process of educating and making information available on all of the legislation and all the responsibilities that have been devolved, and it was also committed, as I’ve said many times, we will devolve and evolve and we have committed to establishing a process to review throughout the Territories and to look at all of the legislation.

With that, I’ll ask, through you, Madam Chair, the director to go into the legal aspects of the question. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Ms. McLaughlin.

Thank you, Ms. McLaughlin. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, what we’re hearing here is that there’s nothing preventing us from discussing that here today, which I think is important. I think this is what we’ve heard from a number of stakeholders in the Northwest Territories.

I guess I’ll ask another question here. What safeguards do we, as the Legislature, or do we, as the public that we represent, have that there will be a review of this legislation, let’s say, within the next five years? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I can only commit to the life of this 17th Assembly.

We, as a government, have committed to undertaking that review. A future government would have to undertake a review to address the five-year window that the federal government has indicated they would be prepared to review the MVRMA in five years. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I appreciate the Premier’s response, which is also what leads me to some concern that this is basically left in the hands of a future Assembly with a potential review. We’re not guaranteed a review and that’s why I am questioning that here today.

I guess my question is: Is there any opposition, perceived opposition with the government that is proposing this bill, of actually including a review triggering mechanism in this bill and in all other nine subsequent mirror legislation bills? Is there an opposition if an amendment was to be brought to the floor of the House?

What we all agreed to was following the mirroring principles that have been in place and have been followed. There are precedents and also we’ve adhered to the mirroring principles. So through you, Madam Chair, I’ll ask Jamie Fulford to go into those details. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Fulford.

Thank you, Mr. Fulford. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now introducing another leg of this tool here, which is this protocol. So my question is: The protocol that is being discussed here today, is that protocol itself legally binding for a formal review of legislation to take place? Thank you.

So, do we have anything legally binding that will force a review of this legislation within a specific time period? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve already committed to doing a review. We committed to that to the Members. We’ve always said we are going to devolve and evolve and we can start reviewing as April 1, 2014, if this transfer goes through and these legislations are passed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I think the Premier knows fairly well that many Members on this side of the House support what has taken place, support devolution. There’s support where we’re moving forward here with mirror legislation. The concern we have is whether or not we’re actually able to have a wholesome and consultative debate with stakeholders after devolution within a meaningful period of time.

It’s clear today, with the information that’s provided, there is no mechanism whatsoever, there’s no protocol that’s legally binding, and so I’ll ask one final time: Is there anything that would give this Member or Members on this side of the House and the public reasonable assurance that a formal review will happen within a specific period of time after devolution date?

I’ve already committed to working with committee and with participating Aboriginal government partners and whomever else that committee would see fit to involve in the review process, and I committed that we could start soon, as of April 1st , and we would develop a process and

a plan that would be acceptable to all parties.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Next I have Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, following in the footsteps of the other Members and the fact that this being the first bill of 10 to come forward, I thought it would be a good point to make some comments about the whole process and the fact that there is very limited debate and discussion on the mirror legislation. I’m not that critical of that issue because I know when we were discussing devolution that mirror legislation was one of those requirements of devolution. I was supportive of devolution. Most of my constituents were supportive of devolution, so I think, for the most part, I’m very comfortable with the process of us providing this mirror legislation.

I agree with some of the Members’ statements about us doing reviews of some of these once we have control of them and when we are able to make some changes and go to the public on public consultation. I think that is a process and something that we should implement once we have control after April 1st . I’m very confident that the Members

on this side are very passionate about this and we will look at these amendments and these new responsibilities of the government.

I don’t want to say that we’re circumventing any system. We actually knew this going into this process of devolution that this was the way it was going to be. This was part of the whole realm of devolution. We accepted that and I think I expressed that to most of my constituents, so I feel they’re comfortable with this process. I would like to indicate to them that we are looking and reviewing where required. Some of this legislation, some of it may not be necessary. Some of it, we definitely feel on this side, and I’m assuming some of the other Members of Cabinet feel that as well, and even the GNWT, that we want to tweak some of this stuff once we own it. That’s the whole concept behind devolution, being able to put the decisions in the hands of the Northerners, so some of this process and some of this whole system will have to become NWT systems, not a mirror legislation of the federal government. Going forward, I’m confident that as a Legislative Assembly we’re going to look at these and put it out to the public what our concerns are, what the issues are out there, once we have it all established and get it going.

I just wanted to make those comments that we are not, you know, from my constituents, we’re not circumventing their opinion. This is something that

was part of devolution that we had to agree to when we took it on, but going forward, we’re putting it back in the hands of Northerners. We’re going to have a look at this in the future, I’m very confident of that.

I have no questions, really.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Premier McLeod, anything in response?

I just want to thank the Member for his comments. That’s the approach that we’re taking exactly and we will undertake a review soon. We’ll start working on that so that we can start working to that effect as of April 1st after we

devolve and evolve.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. General comments. I have Mr. Bromley then Mr. Nadli. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this opportunity to comment and ask a couple of questions. Several times now I have heard a clear commitment from the Premier to conduct a review, and basically, as soon as possible starting or immediately after April 1st , and I

appreciate that. I think the Premier would agree that there are plenty of good reasons to do this, not the least of which is, really, including the opportunity for the public to become familiar with this legislation and to provide their comments on it and also to assist in their role of providing oversight and input based on their understanding of the legislation, and I suspect the government itself would appreciate some quiet, focused opportunity for an internal review of the legislation. Things have been happening very rapidly here. I appreciate the Premier’s commitment.

Just on that, would the Premier agree that if the review indicates that the public or the Members would like to see a clause inserted in this legislation requiring an interval period for review, would the Premier support such a thing?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve always said from the start of this process that we will devolve and evolve, and I think I’ve indicated to the Member several times now that we can start evolving as of April 1st , and if that’s

following due process that we can make those changes.

I think the Premier basically repeated what I just said. I guess I was asking for confirmation that he would put such a clause for review in the legislation, if indeed that was indicated from a review, but I will assume that that general statement was agreement with that but welcome any additional comments.

I guess when we’re going forward with this review, we have a new policy, the Land Use and Sustainability Framework that has come in just recently at the same time that we’ve received this legislation. Would the Premier ensure sort of a sustainability review in that process combined with Members and public input in which we would consider such guiding principles, as I’ve mentioned previously, as transparency, accountability and consistency with co-management of resources, and finally, equity amongst regions, social class and future generations?

As I’ve indicated, I will be pleased to work with committee to come up with a process that would be acceptable to all.

That’s really all I had on the general comments. I think, obviously, we and the general public would be interested if there was a schedule available as of April 1st or whenever the

Premier could come up with it to help the public and Members prepare. I think that’s just a notice that that would be appreciated as soon as that was available.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. More of a comment. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’d be pleased to make sure that the public is aware of what we are doing so that they will have adequate time for input.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Next, general comments, I have Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, had some comments. This is the first of a series of legislation that are going to be mirrored to move the devolution forward. I just wanted to highlight a couple of comments and end off with a question.

Throughout this process as we contemplate this mirror legislation, what got us here was the negotiations process towards devolution. Usually in a negotiation process you have parties, and each party that’s represented at the table reports to their principals. Of course, in the negotiations process, parties agree to the subject matter that needs to be negotiated and, at the same time, consider at least the parameters or the framework of just the scope of perhaps the subjects to be negotiated. Then after that, as the parties roll up their sleeves and hopefully come to the point of an agreement-in-principle, which we will witness. Beyond that, it’s basically the final stretch towards the final agreement. Where we’re at, at this point, is we’re poised to move towards April 1, 2014, and we’re going to be implementing or operating the provisions in terms of how the Devolution Agreement is supposed to work.

The key in that, for me, is understanding the role of the principles, the role of the principals of the

GNWT and the parties, of course. In that role in the relationship is how the whole devolution process came about. I don’t really want to dwell on the “should have beens” but the fact of the reality is we’re here today.

In saying that, as legislators, our role, as I understand it, we represent our constituents on very important and pressing matters we raise in the House. If there is enough common support amongst our colleagues, we work in consensus and arrive at a point where we can move towards legislating actions to remedy concerns. That’s the role I believe we have.

The comfort in this process at this point is, indeed, the Premier has committed that at some point there will be a review process and perhaps an amending mechanism in terms of some legislation in what is before us.

We also have to reflect on what brought us here. For a long time, being a student of politics and First Nations, especially at the community level, seeing my grandparents and my parents and my uncles in leadership roles, what the struggle was all about was the land in terms of lifestyle. We are a nomadic people, the Dene, who roamed throughout this land and developed their culture around the seasons, springtime, summer, fall and winter, and moving to where the fish were, the inlands of big land masses. We moved to the shores of bigger lakes where moose were more plentiful. That became the fundamental basis of the First Nations and ensuring their lifestyles were maintained. Their very innate relationship with the land or the environment was connected all the time. We try to maintain that culture for as long as we can. That became the premise of the movement of First Nations towards protecting the land and our culture.

So this is where we’re at. It’s basically about the land. Some people say that perhaps the land has changed. Some people would also say we’ve changed, the land hasn’t changed; it’s us. So, in that respect, we look forward to the dawning reality of April 1st , a new age of the NWT, of perhaps

looking back and ensuring that what we have learned from the past, we’ll put in our pockets like our elders did, that rock on the trail of going very courageously into the future and making the best possible place in the world for future generations to come.

I feel comfortable today that that plateau has been reached by the leaders of the day. Of course, the parties that were involved in the process were the government, the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories. As we move forward, there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Fundamentally, there is still a strong stand in terms of the relationship that became what is the treaty of 1921 and 1899, that puts into relationship First Nations and the federal

government. That is still strongly standing. Some groups have gone to modernize those treaties and called them land claims. In modernizing their treaties, those land claims were put into the constitution, Section 35. That’s where we’re at today.

For the most part, a lot of the key initiatives were based on a lot of the accomplishments of land claim agreements, some benchmarks, the Dene/Metis Agreement-in-Principle, some discussions on constitutional advancement, the Bourque Commission, those laid pillars of discussions that will signal to the parties that we need to define the framework of this House so we can all sit at the table equally, not one sitting below another.

I would like to, at some point, witness the day when that time will come. Many of the leaders who have passed before me, many elders who have walked this path, I am hoping to witness that at some point.

In saying that, my question the other day was to the Premier. A lot of the key initiatives that government has reached are based on co-management and collaboration. As we make changes to the devolution process, key pending agreements and major initiatives, we’re trying to improve things, make things better. One of the key things that we’ve pushed forward is we’re going to set up a new structure that supposedly is to be very effective and timely in terms of decision-making processes.

I would like to know, once again, what kind of land management regime should we expect after April 1, 2014? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we have been working on, we’ve been working on for over six years and that’s to develop a Land Use Sustainability Framework. We’ve also been working with Aboriginal government partners so we can together manage all of the land in the Northwest Territories. Obviously, as the Member knows, Aboriginal governments are the largest land holders in the Northwest Territories through land claim agreements. What we’ve agreed on is we will work together so we can manage all of the land under their respective jurisdictions and try to have a land management process that is coordinated, collaborative and provides for interests of all of the people that we all represent. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Is the committee prepared to go clause by clause?

Thank you, committee. We’ll defer the first page of Bill 1. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 9 inclusive approved

Bill as a whole.

Does committee agree that Bill 1, Reindeer Act, is ready for third reading?

---Bill 1 as a whole approved for third reading

Thank you, committee. Bill 1 is now ready for third reading.

We’ll move on to Bill 2, Archaeological Sites Act. Premier McLeod.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, Archaeological Sites Act. The passage of this legislation is an important step towards implementing the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

The Archaeological Sites Act will provide the Northwest Territories with the authority to mirror the Northwest Territories Archaeological Sites Regulations under the Northwest Territories Act. The mirroring of these regulations is a requirement of the Devolution Agreement.

Under the Devolution Agreement, the GNWT is committed to “substantially mirror” Canada’s statutes and regulations that are being repealed or made inapplicable to public lands transferring to the GNWT through devolution.

The mirroring exercise means that the new GNWT laws will address the same matters, in substantially the same way, as federal laws do now. Mirroring principles limited changes to addressing issues such as correcting outdated language and applying GNWT drafting standards.

Mirrored legislation is a practical first step to ensure a continued delivery of services on April 1, 2014. Mirrored legislation also ensures that there are no legislative gaps or overlaps between the GNWT and Canada.

The parties to the Devolution Agreement entered into a Protocol for Review of Devolution Legislation. Under this protocol, all parties have had the opportunity to review and comment on this legislation before it was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. We have considered these comments carefully in preparation of the bill before you.

The Archaeological Sites Act mirrors the provisions of the present Northwest Territories Act respecting archaeological, ethnological and historical resources, and provides authority to make regulations concerning the protection, care and preservation of these resources, archaeological permitting, and seizure of inappropriately obtained items.

As required in the Devolution Agreement, the Government of the Northwest Territories will also mirror the Northwest Territories Archaeological

Sites Regulations that are currently under the Northwest Territories Act.

The Department of Education, Culture and Employment will administer the new mirrored Archaeological Sites Act and the regulations under that act, consistent with its responsibilities for the existing territorial Historical Resources Act.

I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Committee will allow the chairperson of the standing committee, Ms. Bisaro, to review comments on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has reviewed Bill 2, Archaeological Sites Act.

Pursuant to the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, Bill 2 substantially mirrors the Government of Canada’s Archaeological Sites Regulations as provided for in the Northwest Territories Act.

This act applies to all matters respecting archaeological sites and artifacts that were previously governed by the federal Northwest Territories Act

and Northwest Territories

Archaeological Sites Regulations.

Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 2 to the Assembly as ready for further consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 2. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Would the Premier like to take the witness table now? Thank you.

Premier McLeod, if you could reintroduce your witnesses to the House, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On my right I have Kelly McLaughlin, director of legislation for the Department of Justice; to my left I have Jamie Fulford, legal counsel with the Department of Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. Fulford, welcome again to the House.

Committee, general comments? Mr. Yakeleya.

Just for clarification with this new responsibility that we’re going to receive under Bill 2 and the passing of this legislation, certainly it will bring the control mechanism of making decisions and having protection of our heritage sites, our archeological sites closer to the North. I just wanted to ask the Premier for a clarification on the modern

land claims and modern treaties, comprehensive land claims. In chapter 26 we speak to the heritage resources and provisions in these chapters would be respected and that is inconsistent with the existing legislation. Our Constitution document supersedes what we have now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. For that we’ll go to Mr. Fulford.

Thank you, Mr. Fulford. General comments. Is committee prepared to go clause by clause?

Thank you. Committee, we’ll defer the first page. Committee, clause 1.

----Clauses 1 through 9 inclusive approved

CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dolynny): To the bill as a whole.

Does committee agree that Bill 2, Archeological Sites Act, is ready for third reading?

----Bill 2 as a whole approved for third reading

We’ll turn your attention to discussions on review of Bill 3. With that, we’ll go to the proponent of Bill 3, Premier McLeod, for the opening comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 3, Surface Rights Board Act. The passage of this legislation is an important step towards implementing the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

The new Department of Lands will administer the Government of the Northwest Territories’ new authorities under the Surface Rights Board Act.

Under the Devolution Agreement, the GNWT is committed to “substantially mirror” Canada’s legislation that is repealed or made inapplicable to public lands transferring to the GNWT through devolution.

Mirrored legislation means that the GNWT’s laws will address the same matters, in substantially the same way, as federal laws do now.

Mirrored legislation also means that changes have been limited to addressing issues such as outdated language and to match the legislation with GNWT drafting standards.

Mirrored legislation is a practical first step to ensure a continued delivery of services on April 1, 2014. Mirrored legislation also ensures that there are no legislative gaps or overlaps between the GNWT and Canada.

The parties to the Devolution Agreement entered into a Protocol for Review of Devolution Legislation Agreement. Under this protocol, all parties have been able to review and comment on this legislation before it was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. We have considered these comments carefully in preparation of the bill before you.

The Surface Rights Board Act will establish a Surface Rights Board as an institution of public government that will resolve disputes related to land access and related compensation when a negotiated agreement cannot be reached.

The Surface Rights Board will be made up of five to nine members and five alternate members. These members will be appointed for a term of five years and must include members from the Gwich’in, Inuvialuit, Sahtu and Tlicho areas.

To meet its obligations, the Surface Rights Board will be able to grant binding access orders and the terms and conditions of that access, including where, when, who that access can be exercised as well as what activities can be exercised as part of that access.

The Surface Rights Board will also be able to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid for the right of access, will be able to terminate access orders and award costs related to its proceedings.

The establishment of the Surface Rights Board and this legislation reflects an obligation of the comprehensive land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories.

The territorial mirrored Surface Rights Board Act will come into force in two phases:

• those provisions related to the establishment of

the Surface Rights Board and regulation-making authority come into force on April 1, 2014, while

• the board will start its substantive functions on

April 1, 2016.

The Government of the Northwest Territories is already taking steps to ensure that the Surface Rights Board can assume these functions, including the appointment of members to the board.

I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Committee, we’ll go to the chairperson of the Priorities and Planning standing committee that reviewed the bill for general comments. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has reviewed Bill 3, Surface Rights Board Act.

The Surface Rights Board Act mirrors federal legislation, pursuant to the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement. The act provides for a Surface Rights Board to resolve disputes relating to terms and conditions of access to lands and waters, chiefly for commercial purposes. This includes disputes over compensation for access.

The act covers Gwich’in, Sahtu and Tlicho lands and waters as well as Inuvialuit lands and other lands in the NWT.

Alternatives North provided comments on Bill 3 related to the future board’s powers and jurisdiction. The committee carefully considered these comments and thanks Alternatives North for their participation and thorough critique.

During the clause-by-clause review with the Premier, a minor amendment was made to correct the French version of the bill. The Premier concurred with the amendment. A motion was subsequently carried to report Bill 3 to the Assembly as ready for further consideration in Committee of the Whole as amended and reprinted.

This concludes the committee’s general comments on Bill 3. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Premier McLeod, if you can join us at the witness table, please. Premier McLeod, if you can once again reintroduce your witnesses to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right I have Kelly McLaughlin, the director of Legislation with the Department of Justice. To my left I have Jamie Fulford, legal counsel with the Department of Justice. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Again, Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. Fulford, thank you for joining. General comments. I’ll go to Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the Premier and staff on Bill 3 here. I have a few questions here, generated through our call for comments from the public. The first is by way of comment really. The questioning of the need for this legislation as there are provisions in existing legislation and land claims agreements for dispute resolution related to surface rights, not to mention that I’m not aware of any disputes in the settled land claim areas. But obviously a Surface Rights Board, it’s an added inefficiency and expense, but it seems to be required here, been deemed necessary. Given that it should have the authority to deny access when conditions indicate that such a denial would

be appropriate, does this legislation provide for that potential? Thank you,

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On occasion, especially in the discussion with the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline there was an indication there that a surface rights board would have facilitated some discussions, because without a Surface Rights Board Act, the only tool available to deal with disputes would be arbitration. But with regards to the specific question, Mr. Chair, through you I’ll ask Mr. Fulford to respond. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Mr. Fulford.

Thank you, Mr. Fulford. Mr. Bromley.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, when an exploration company, for example, wants to stake mineral claims inside a community, which has happened inside some of the Tlicho communities, obviously, and understandably, people were very upset, and a clear basis for denial of access, but I believe there is archaic legislation related to a free entry system that does provide a right to exploration companies to do that. Am I correct in saying this legislation does not correct that injustice and would not be able to deny access in that case? Thank you.

I think the suggestion from the public is that it should, but I appreciate that clarity. I would urge all municipalities to declare themselves conservation zones.

Another comment is the board should have the ability to acquire financial security to ensure compliance with board orders and to shift the

burden of proof and risks to the developer rather than the surface rights holder. Does this legislation, in fact, do that? Thank you.

The board should reflect a co-management model where Aboriginal and public governments each appoint half of the members. Is that the case in the board created by this legislation? Mahsi.

Somewhat colonial comes to mind there, Mr. Chair, but again I think this is the sort of thing that will come out once there’s a thorough opportunity for review. Thanks for that response.

The board should have the ability to set its own rules of procedure rather than excluding the public interest. Is that currently the case? Thank you.

That sounds good. Thank you for that. Sorry, I had one more. The regime should not apply in those regions where Aboriginal land rights have not been recognized or settled. Is that the case currently? Thank you.

Just perhaps a little expansion there. How are the two treated differently, or at least how is it treated within the unsettled regions, non-designated lands? Thank you.

Are there additional obligations, though, to check in with the Aboriginal governments who have not settled but on whose land access is being completed? Thank you.

I appreciate all those clarifications and responses. Those are all the questions I had. I think there were some heads-up and pointers that could be considered as we work towards a review of the legislation. I appreciate this information. That’s all I had. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Continuing on, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m certainly interested in the questions and exchange with Mr. Bromley. A lot of questions have to be thought out. Certainly, when we negotiated and settled the Sahtu Dene/Metis Comprehensive Land Claim, chapter 27 spoke to the Surface Rights Board. Because that legislation hasn’t happened until today and a few months ago we had a Surface Rights Board, we had an arbitration panel that was before us. The arbitration panel, under chapter 6 of our land claim, was like the Maytag repair person, very quiet. The agreement was already negotiated and settled, put together, and we had an arbitration panel but it was never called upon or needed. I met with them every year at our annual Sahtu General Assembly and they were very quiet. So we know we have a value in working things out.

The Sahtu, again under chapter 27, we have the Surface Rights Board. As Mr. Bromley stated clearly, it gets quite complex and confusing. You have settled land claims and land claims being negotiated, so you have different access to lands and different interpretations to lands. In our land claims it’s set out very clearly on the roles and responsibilities of the Surface Rights Board and what we negotiated in 1992, 1993 and 1994 and received assent to this document.

The point I want to make, for clarification, is this act will take in the agreement that we settled here and just to clarify that all members of the board must live in the Northwest Territories. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. I’ll just give them a second to get to the page. We’ll go to Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our government policy or rule of thumb is that in every instance we will appoint members from the Northwest Territories. I’ll ask, through you, Mr. Chair, Ms. McLaughlin to point out the exact clause and confirm that.

Thank you, Premier McLeod. Ms. McLaughlin.

Thank you, Ms. McLaughlin. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, I hope that she means the regions within the Northwest Territories. Is that my understanding?

Thank you for the clarification. I’ll close the book on that now

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. General comments. Is committee prepared to do a clause by clause. Sorry. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps it could be a very simplistic question, but perhaps I’ll pose it to the Premier; if not, maybe the staff that are with him. I know the whole intention of this whole exercise is to, of course, bear the responsibility of the GNWT with more responsibilities on the public lands and resources and we’re at that point.

My question is: What role would the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have in terms of the Surface Rights Board Act? Plus, this is rather significant in terms of setting the course for perhaps more decision-making here in the North, but it stems from mirror legislation that goes back to the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The federal government, or AANDC, still has responsibility with regard to some specific lands, so through you, I’ll ask Mr. Fulford to go into more detail, Mr. Chair.