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.