Assembly Vote

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you letting me add that little extra, but it's important.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Frame Lake, that the remainder of the Committee Report 23-20(1), the Standing Committee on economic environment -- sorry, Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment Report on the Review of the Land Use Permitting and Water Licensing Regulatory Framework in the Northwest Territories be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

INTRODUCTION

The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment's (Committee) interest in undertaking a targeted review of the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act's (MVRMA) regulatory framework began in the Spring of 2024. This review was largely prompted by Committee being aware of the ongoing concerns and challenges within the regulatory system, particularly with respect to the Waters Regulations, that have been raised by various stakeholders, Indigenous governments and communities, proponents and other participants, particularly with respect to their experiences with the land use permitting and water licensing processes.

Committee set out to review the underlying processes and requirements under the MVRMA, and their interpretation by all parties, with the goal of ensuring the spirit and intent of the MVRMA is being met, and to assess the Government of the Northwest Territories' (GNWT) role in the system. Moreover, Committee built upon other complementary initiatives such as the Mackenzie Valley Operational Dialogue (MVOD), the NWT Environmental Audit, and other work already done by the Land and Water Boards (LWBs) and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board (MVEIRB), Indigenous governments, the GNWT, the Government of Canada (GoC), and stakeholders who interact with the land and water use permitting and licensing processes. These have presented a number of perspectives on opportunities for clarifying, strengthening, and simplifying the existing regulatory framework.

For this reason, Committee has conducted a study of the regulatory framework under the MVRMA that pertains to land and water use permitting, and its operational effectiveness. This initiative is meant to complement and align with larger legislative initiatives with longer timelines that are under consideration by the GNWT for the 20th Legislative Assembly, such as drafting work for the Mineral Resources Regulations to bring the Mineral Resources Act into force and amendments undertaken as part of the phased approach committed to by the Department of Environment and Climate Change (ECC) for the Waters Act and associated regulations.

BACKGROUND

The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) provides the legislative foundation for regulating land and water use in the Mackenzie Valley, which encompasses approximately twenty percent of Canada's landmass. It is part of a broader integrated regulatory system that includes the Waters Act, the Northwest Territories Lands Act^[1], and various other federal and territorial statutes. The MVRMA was enacted to implement the provisions of modern land claim agreements, including those stemming from historic treaties such as Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, and to establish co-management regimes for natural resources in the NWT.

At its core, the MVRMA enables the creation and operation of co-management boards to oversee land use planning, environmental assessments, and the regulation of land and water use through Land and Water Boards (LWBs). These boards are composed of representatives from Indigenous Governments and territorial and federal government nominees to ensure decision-making reflects both scientific expertise and traditional knowledge. This collaborative structure is intended to ensure that resource development aligns with legal requirements, environmental protection goals, and Indigenous rights and interests. The boards' authority extends across both Crown and private lands and all waters within their jurisdiction.

As such, contemporary resource management in the NWT is rooted in the principles of integration, coordination, and co-management. The MVRMA and related legislation are direct outcomes of negotiated land claims and self-government agreements, which clarify land rights, ownership, and shared governance responsibilities. These agreements are constitutionally protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and guarantee Indigenous participation in managing both renewable and non-renewable resources.

The regulatory framework ensures that projects, from small-scale activities to major infrastructure developments, undergo rigorous and transparent reviews. Indigenous involvement is central to this process, ensuring that economic development is pursued in balance with environmental stewardship and community values. With the Devolution Agreement of 2014, jurisdiction over most public lands transferred to the GNWT, leaving less than eight percent of the territory under federal administration. This shift has further emphasized the importance of cooperative governance between Indigenous communities and territorial authorities in resource management.

In addition to the co-management system set out by the MVRMA, there are other factors that make the North a unique jurisdiction to pursue resource extraction and other business endeavours, some of them posing challenges. Throughout this study, Committee was reminded that the remoteness, extreme temperatures, short construction season, lack of energy and transportation infrastructure, and high costs of operating in the NWT can present challenges for all participants in the regulatory system. Nevertheless, Committee is also aware that the North's uniqueness can give it a competitive advantage, particularly where partnerships with Indigenous communities or the opportunity to use renewable energy and green technologies results in projects that have high potential for meeting environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals for sustainability and ethical development.

STUDY SCOPE

Committee's review of the regulatory framework began in the Spring of 2024. This review was largely prompted by the ongoing concerns and challenges raised by various Indigenous communities and Governments, stakeholders and users across the MVRMA system. There is a significant body of publicly available work that underpins Committee's concerns and the direction for this study. For example:

The Land and Water Boards have noted issues with the Waters Act and MVRMA, particularly with the regulations.

Industry proponents, particularly those who are smaller-to-mid-level explorers and producers have raised challenges with permitting and licensing for projects.

The MVOD was created in 2019 to respond to concerns raised by industry during the federal review of Bill C-88 and have since continued with the overarching goal “for the regulatory regime in the Mackenzie Valley to be understood, trusted, effective, and efficient for all involved (including IGOs, Governments, Boards, Industry, etc.).”

Indigenous communities and Governments have raised significant capacity challenges and barriers that prevent meaningful participation in the regulatory system.

The 2020 NWT Environmental Audit identified a number of gaps, persistent and new issues, and areas of opportunity under a review of the effectiveness of the regulatory regime. Many of the issues and recommendations were carried forward from the 2015 Environmental Audit,

Committee's review is intended to build on the work already done by subject matter experts across the LWBs, Indigenous Governments, the GNWT, the Government of Canada, and other stakeholders who interact with the land and water use permitting and licensing process. Therefore, Committee's focus is on examining how the GNWT can improve, make changes where needed and as appropriate, and consider ways to enhance the capacity of parties to meaningfully participate in the land and water use permitting process. This report presents our findings and targeted recommendations to the GNWT that include specific actions and interventions the GNWT should consider for improving the administration, efficiency, and effectiveness of the regulatory framework.

Committee has also included observations which may not be associated with a particular recommendation. In many cases, what was presented or shared with Committee highlighted significant opportunities or provided relevant information and considerations that were beyond the scope of Committee's focus on recommendations to the GNWT. However, we found these perspectives to be important to the context of environmental and resources management in the NWT and have included them in the later sections of this report.

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Committee's review began in the Spring of 2024. To support this review, Committee publicly sought feedback from Indigenous governments, the LWBs, other government agencies (e.g., Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC)), the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, small mining and exploration companies interacting with the regulatory framework, and other stakeholders through an open request posted on the Legislative Assembly website and social media. Recognizing the importance of Indigenous perspectives, Committee issued formal invitations to Indigenous governments and communities to participate and share their views and experiences.

Public Engagement and Submissions

Committee held five public briefings which are available for viewing on the Legislative Assembly YouTube channel:

NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines (June 25, 2024).

Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board (July 10, 2024).

Crown Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) (July 11, 2024).

Tłı̨chǫ Government (October 11, 2024).

Briefing on Barriers to Lithium Mining in the NWT (Li-Ft Power, Lake Winn Resources, North Arrow Minerals) (October 31, 2024).

The presentations submitted for the public briefings are available in the appendices to this Committee Report.

In addition, Committee received written submissions:

Written submission from the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines (to supplement public briefing) (August 6, 2024).

Written submission from Samba K'e First Nation (August 28, 2024).

Written submission from Łíídlįį Kų́ę́ First Nation (September 5, 2024).

Written submission from Alternatives North (September 27, 2024).

Written submission from West Point First Nation (September 27, 2024).

Written submission from Acho Dene Koe First Nation (October 3, 2024).

CIRNAC submitted the 2024 Summary Report on the MVOD to Committee as a supplement to the public briefing.

The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Boards also referenced and provided two letters for Committee's consideration:

A letter from an Indigenous government describing capacity constraints .

A letter sent by all four LWBs to Ministers Vandal and Macdonald (and response from Minister Macdonald) regarding recommended changes to the Waters Regulations.

It should be noted that Committee received correspondence from Indigenous governments and communities, and other stakeholders who expressed an interest in participating in the study but were not able to do so because of capacity constraints. Issues with community capacity is a recurring theme throughout this report.

Written submissions are included in the appendices to this Committee Report.

What We Heard: Themes of Engagement and Submissions

There were seven themes and associated sub-themes identified across the public briefings and written submissions. In some cases, the themes and sub-themes are related to others and are treated as connected issues in the text of the report and its recommendations. As a result, some of the findings are recurring throughout the sections of the report, but sometimes with slightly different context and associated recommendations.

The themes are as follows:

Duplication

Legislative & Regulatory Issues

Education

Economic Benefits

Planning and Logistics

Engagement and Meaningful Participation

NWT Environmental Audit Recommendations

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Duplication

Committee heard from witnesses that there is concern regarding duplication of effort and required information within regulatory processes and authorizations, although not all witnesses shared that view. The Chamber of Mines raised concerns regarding apparent duplication and duplicative information being required across multiple submissions for permits, licences, and authorizations, as well as some confusion as to the process for submissions for different licences and ability to use information already submitted as a baseline for additional information.

The issue of “departmental siloing” was also raised as a challenge for small companies who experience challenges working with multiple regulators across the regulatory framework. There appears to be a disconnect where expectations are not entirely clear for participants.

Figure 1 (below) illustrates the typical process that is followed for securing permits and licenses for land and water use from the LWBs.

Figure 1: Example of Land and Water Boards Permitting Process from Mineral Exploration to Mining

Factors such as water use, equipment used on site, camp size, infrastructure, and any deposits of waste to water bodies will also impact the requirements from authorizations. Additional requirements for land tenure through surface leases is administered through ECC and constitutes a separate authorization process.

Committee's study highlighted that having an integrated approach to streamline permitting processes for low risk, small exploration activities can have beneficial outcomes for smaller operations and exploration companies. To that end, the 2020 NWT Environmental Audit recommended that the LWBs and the GNWT develop a standardized mineral exploration permitting bundle, in consultation with affected parties, similar to what the MVLWB has already done for municipal water licences. Although the GNWT's response indicated that this work would be actioned, it has not yet been implemented. Consequently, Committee recommends:

To complement this recommendation, Committee has also provided additional recommendations related to the GNWT fully implementing the recommendations of the 2020 Audit throughout this report. Furthermore, Committee finds that the issue of “departmental siloing” could be addressed by undertaking an integrated, “whole of government approach” to regulatory decision making and information sharing. This concept is explored in a later section of this report that speaks to “pathfinding.”

Legislative and Regulatory Issues

Waters Regulations

Committee found that the Waters Regulations were the focal point of many written submissions and the public briefings. The Waters Regulations have not been substantively amended since they were enacted in 1993, which has meant that its provisions have not kept pace with the economic development landscape in the NWT. The LWBs have noted that the primary issues are:

Project types are not contemplated in the Regulations (e.g., mineral exploration, diamond mining, abandoned mine-site remediation projects, etc.).

There is a mismatch between the amount of regulatory process required for activities and the environmental impacts of some regulated activities (e.g., water use for ice bridges, etc.),

Language is not clear for some provisions (see appendices for examples).

Many participants that we heard from highlighted the need for timely, surgical changes to the Waters Regulations to bring them up-to-date and provide much needed clarity for Indigenous governments and communities, the LWBs, industry proponents, and others who engage with the Waters Regulations.

For more than 15 years, the Northwest Territories resource management system has been under some sort of review or revision. We have a world-class regulatory system based on modern treaties and co-management, with open and transparent processes and evidence-based decision making. We do not need fundamental changes. Unfortunately, all those reviews and attempted revisions have distracted us from doing the kind of basic maintenance work on our land and water regulations that should be standard regulatory practice.

We have some regulatory requirements that are outdated or simply unclear. We need communication and education for people unfamiliar with our treaty-based co-management system. It is part of our shared responsibility to help developers navigate the regulatory process, also to debunk myths, deconstruct generalizations, and get the facts out there.” Tłı̨chǫ Government Public Briefing, October 11, 2024

The LWBs have provided a clear and actionable roadmap for the GNWT in their May 2024 letter to the Hon. Minister Vandal and the Hon. Minister Macdonald (see appendices for a summary of all recommendations including those from the LWBs). This guidance builds on recommendations previously made to the Ministers in 2017 and again in 2023 through the MVOD. Committee notes the Minister of ECC has stated a commitment to advancing amendments to the Waters Act and Waters Regulations in phases, beginning with the Waters Regulations. While this commitment is a step forward, Committee finds the prolonged inaction on these long-standing recommendations unacceptable. It is deeply concerning that the GNWT has been aware of these critical issues since 2017, yet concrete steps are only now being initiated. This delay undermines the interests of the NWT and its residents. Committee strongly urges the GNWT to prioritize and expedite this work without further delay.

Echoing the concerns expressed by the LWBs, the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, several Indigenous governments, and Alternatives North, Committee notes that certain aspects of the Waters Regulations are outdated, lack clarity, and present challenges for a wide range of participants with diverse interests. The Minister committed to providing an update at the next MVOD Meeting, however, there is no publicly available indication of when that will be. In the interest of transparency, accountability and keeping the public informed, Committee therefore makes the following recommendation.

Through the course of Committee's study, we heard specific recommendations and concerns about the Waters Regulations. While broader legislative initiatives—such as the potential update and integration of the Waters Act and the Environmental Protection Act—are important and necessary in the long term, the immediate responsibility of the government, through the Intergovernmental Council process, is to prioritize and address the most pressing issues with the greatest potential impact.

The issues have been well-documented across multiple publications, stakeholder testimonies, and requests made to the GNWT, yet decisive and coordinated action remains insufficient. The consequences of inaction are no longer hypothetical; they are measurable and immediate, with costs ultimately borne by residents of the NWT.

Committee calls upon the GNWT — as the principal authority responsible for safeguarding the public interest — to act without delay, to coordinate across departments and with the Intergovernmental Council, and to deploy the necessary authority, leadership, and resources to complete surgical changes to the Waters Regulations. Given the urgency and cumulative impact of inaction, the GNWT must treat this issue as a strategic priority, not a procedural inconvenience. Delay is no longer acceptable; coordinated, well-resourced intervention must begin now. Consequently, Committee recommends:

Mineral Resources Act and Regulations

Committee heard that ongoing regulatory and legislative changes, including the forthcoming regulations under the Mineral Resources Act (MRA), are generating uncertainty across stakeholder groups—particularly for industry proponents. Stakeholders emphasized that while regulatory reform is necessary, the timing, scope, and implementation of these changes should be carefully considered to avoid unintended delays, inefficiencies, or barriers to participation.

Proponents, such as those advancing critical mineral projects, highlighted that being among the first to navigate new regulatory frameworks creates unique challenges. The lack of precedent, coupled with evolving requirements, may extend project timelines and increase risk. These concerns were compounded by observations that key regulatory terms—such as "early-stage exploration"—remain undefined, creating ambiguity in the permitting process. Greater clarity in definitions and permitting thresholds is needed to ensure that regulatory obligations are proportionate to the scale and risk of activities.

In parallel, Committee heard from Alternatives North about the perceived lack of meaningful public engagement in the development of legislation and regulations. There is concern that regulatory frameworks are being shaped behind closed doors, without adequate transparency or opportunities for public input. This approach risks diminishing public trust and missing valuable perspectives, particularly from environmental organizations, and local communities whose rights and interests may be significantly affected.

Committee underscores that predictable timelines, transparent processes, and well-defined regulatory language are crucial to maintaining confidence in the NWT's regulatory system. Inadequate consultation or rushed implementation may have serious implications for economic development, environmental stewardship, and the integrity of the co-management system. Committee notes that the public briefing with the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment held on February 26, 2025, was timely and provided much-needed information to the public. To that end, Committee recommends:

Board Appointments

Committee heard that delays and inefficiencies in the appointment of members to regulatory and co-management boards pose significant challenges to the effective functioning of these institutions. These boards play a critical role in ensuring regulatory oversight, balancing economic development with environmental stewardship, and upholding the principles of co-management and collaborative decision-making.

The Tłı̨chǫ Government emphasized that timely appointments are critical to maintaining quorum and enabling boards to fulfill their mandates. However, current appointment processes are often hindered by administrative and bureaucratic delays across multiple levels of government, including within federal systems. In some cases, Indigenous governments have had to intervene directly to advocate for the advancement of appointments, underscoring a lack of responsiveness in the system.

Committee recognizes the importance of ensuring that board appointment processes are efficient, transparent, and responsive. It also acknowledges the role of the GNWT in facilitating and following up on nominations to avoid gaps in governance, such as those currently impacting the Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board. Consequently, Committee recommends:

Compliance and Enforcement

Submissions to Committee highlight a perception that the current inspection and enforcement regime responsible for environmental protection and regulatory compliance in the NWT lacks transparency. At present, public access to information is largely limited to individual inspection reports posted on the LWB's registries. There is no centralized, or user-friendly system that offers comprehensive, accessible data on key aspects of inspection activity—such as the number of inspectors, frequency of inspections, instances of non-compliance, enforcement actions, or orders issued.

This absence of consolidated public reporting makes it challenging for the public, Indigenous governments, and other stakeholders to fully understand how environmental conditions are being monitored and enforced. Committee observes that while the Public Land Act (PLA) includes provisions for enhanced public reporting under section 56, these provisions have not yet been brought into force. This delay limits opportunities to strengthen public communication, accountability, and confidence in the oversight of land and environmental management.

Education

Many of the public presentations and written submissions highlighted the importance of education and building awareness amongst participants in the MVRMA system. When mineral exploration companies arrive in the NWT, their first point of contact is typically the GNWT's Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment (ITI), specifically through the Mining Recorder's Office. There, they begin the process by obtaining prospecting permits, staking mineral claims, and, if successful, securing mineral leases. As their project grows in scope, they eventually require a land use permit, which brings them into contact with additional regulators. At this stage, they start to receive input from a wider range of government agencies, including both territorial and federal departments—many of which may not have been part of the early conversations.

If the project advances toward becoming an operational mine, the next major step involves a review by the MVEIRB. Should the project be approved and granted the necessary regulatory authorizations, the proponent must then return to the GNWT to apply for a surface lease to proceed with development. This progression involves navigating a complex network of processes and agencies, which can be challenging. For this reason, it is particularly important in the mineral exploration and mining sector that proponents understand the full regulatory landscape early on so they can plan effectively and avoid unexpected delays. Education and support throughout the process is vitally important.

Pathfinding

Several of the participants noted that there is an existing Pathfinder program offered by the GNWT that assists mineral exploration companies in the early stages. However, it was highlighted to Committee that a pathfinding function is also offered by the federal government. There are many different types of activities, not just mineral exploration, and many different stages that projects go through where companies need to interact with different parties and regulators at different times, particularly when a project is transitioning through different phases within its lifecycle.

Committee sees evidence that expanding and enhancing the existing Pathfinding Program could be of significant benefit. Having one or several Pathfinder positions to guide applicants through the various rules and expectations for all types of industries and activities at all stages of their projects ensures proponents are receiving the most helpful guidance. It also reflects the holistic and integrated nature of the co-management system. Further to that, Committee observes that the Pathfinding position does not extend beyond the Department of ITI to coordinate with other GNWT departments such as ECC. This makes it a challenge for the LWBs, regulators who are issuing permits and licenses, and proponents to have a full understanding of what will be expected at every step. Consequently, Committee recommends:

Committee notes that an in-depth investigation of surface leases and security determination is beyond the scope of this study, however, we suggest that surface leases and land tenure, and security determination and collection should be addressed within the scope of an enhanced Pathfinding Program to elevate the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.

Guidance

Perspectives shared with Committee stated the importance of providing templates, guidance, how-to documents, and a clear delineation of what to expect throughout approval processes across the development lifecycle, particularly during the exploration phase. Several participants in Committee's study noted that the LWBs provide abundant and helpful guidelines, bulletins and reference materials to assist applicants in understanding how the co-management system works.

As part of improvements made to Pathfinding under the creation of a comprehensive, “whole-of-government-approach” Pathfinding Program, Committee recommends the following:

Plain Language Summaries

Committee finds that there is a need for a more accessible and inclusive regulatory process, particularly for Indigenous governments. Specifically, we propose changes that would make it easier for community members—particularly those without technical backgrounds—to understand and engage with project proposals. One way to address this would be to require that all project submissions include a plain-language summary of the technical documents being reviewed.

This step would help bridge the gap between highly specialized reports and the broader public, ensuring that individuals can more easily contribute informed comments and concerns. By enhancing the accessibility of project information, the regulatory system would foster deeper, more meaningful engagement. This, in turn, could lead to more comprehensive decision-making that draws on a wider range of perspectives and traditional knowledge systems—particularly those currently underrepresented in the process.

Committee acknowledges that amendments to the MVRMA are beyond the scope of this study. However, the MVRMA could be supplemented with guidance requiring proponents to provide plain-language summaries of technical documents as part of the project review process. This measure would support equitable participation, enhance transparency, and ensure that Indigenous communities have a clear and accessible pathway to contribute their input throughout the regulatory process

Committee notes that amendments to legislation could be contemplated in the future to enhance and support meaningful engagement for Indigenous communities and education about activities taking place on their traditional lands.

Economic Benefits and Procurement

All the Indigenous government and community responses expressed strong desire to ensure their communities secure an appropriate portion of the economic benefits of development. Additionally, a number of industry participants also expressed cases where partnerships and procurement from local Indigenous communities has significantly benefited their projects as well as the communities they have worked with. Committee sees the opportunity to go farther. As such, Committee further notes that at the time of writing this report, the GNWT is seeking public input on the development of a new Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP). Committee sees this as timely and important work.

Committee observes that Indigenous procurement remains insufficiently prioritized in territorial regulatory and project implementation processes. One of the Indigenous Governments we heard from has repeatedly emphasized the importance of involving Indigenous monitors in projects to ensure environmental oversight reflects the values and expectations of impacted communities. Despite formal requests, they have often been excluded from subsequent procurement and monitoring opportunities.

Additionally, a submission received from an Indigenous government said that expressions of interest and requests for inclusion have been met with dismissive or generic responses from both the MVLWB and the GNWT. Indigenous governments and groups consistently call for the economic inclusion of Indigenous communities through preferential procurement and contracting opportunities, in alignment with the principles of economic reconciliation. The Mineral Resources Act is expected to address some of these concerns by requiring Impact Benefit Agreements at the exploration stage once the Act is brought into force. Committee reaffirms its support for these objectives and urges the timely implementation of the Mineral Resources Act and its regulations to help advance meaningful economic participation for Indigenous communities.

Subsequently, Committee recommends:

Engagement and Meaningful Participation

Capacity

Committee recognizes that meaningful participation in the regulatory system depends heavily on the ability of all parties to engage fully; yet we consistently heard that limited staffing, funding, and timelines are significant barriers to effective participation. We heard that this is a common concern among Indigenous governments, the LWBs, small mineral development companies, the GNWT itself, and non-governmental organizations.

Staffing and Human Resources

Committee observed that capacity constraints are a widespread challenge across the regulatory system, affecting Indigenous governments and communities, small exploration companies, and even regulatory agencies themselves. For Indigenous governments in particular, bottlenecks may arise at different stages of the process—such as conducting technical reviews or providing support—compared to those involved in final decision-making. These challenges are often rooted in the complexity of the regulatory landscape in the NWT, which requires a strong understanding of treaties, legislation, and technical operations. Addressing these issues is not as simple as filling a vacancy; developing meaningful capacity requires time, mentorship, and institutional knowledge.

For Indigenous governments, lack of capacity can significantly undermine their ability to effectively participate. For example, the West Point First Nation shared that

West Point First Nation often receives multiple autogenerated emails from the MVLWB on a daily basis. These notifications can 3 or 4 notifications one day and another day the notifications can be 15 or more. Some of the notifications can be related land, water and resource management activities affecting West Point First Nation land use areas. Other MVLWB notification can be related to land, water and resource management activities outside West Point Fist Nation land use areas, such as receiving notifications for Inuvik. Receiving multiple daily notifications form the MVLWB is affecting an Indigenous Governments ability participate effectively participate in reviewing MVLWB notifications related to land, water and resource management activities affecting their land use areas.

WPFN Written Submission

This volume of submissions results in situations where Indigenous governments are forced to triage without having full knowledge of which submissions are the most central to their interests. Limited environmental staffing makes it difficult to manage the volume of regulatory communications, leading to prioritization of known files, such as LWB applications. This can delay engagement on new projects, reducing opportunities to provide input early in the process. In the most serious cases, Indigenous governments have missed opportunities to engage early with proponents during preliminary screening phases of the application processes.

Additionally, consideration must be given to constraints that arise from both lack of capacity in terms of human resources, but also the seasonal practices and traditional land uses of Indigenous peoples that can alter their capacity to respond at certain times of the year. Availability and capacity within the community are often reduced during key seasonal periods such as fall and spring hunts, summer, and the winter road season, when many members are on the land or engaged in essential family and cultural activities. These cycles make it difficult to secure quorum for Chief and Council, delaying important decisions and affecting the community's ability to respond swiftly to regulatory matters. Similarly, community engagement—particularly with Elders, youth, and Cultural Knowledge Holders—is more difficult during these times, presenting challenges in the timely collection and integration of Traditional Knowledge, which is vital to responsible stewardship and decision-making.

Alternatives North notes in its submission that while it supports comments made by the LWBs regarding the IRMA Program, its focus is on public participation. Currently, the Northern Participant Funding Program applies only to environmental assessments and does not extend to land and water regulatory processes. The program remains underdeveloped, with unclear guidelines and limited accessibility for NGOs and the public. Additionally, NGOs have been excluded from several co-management initiatives, including the MVOD, as well as from GNWT-led regulatory and legislative processes—an ongoing concern previously raised in committee reports, such as the SCEDE report on Bill 74 (Forest Act).

Committee wishes to highlight that public participation, transparency and accountability are fundamental to the regulatory process. Committee stresses the need for improved public participation in all environmental management processes and development decisions under the MVRMA based on the recommendations from these previous submissions and reports.

Committee therefore presents the following three recommendations to improve staffing and human resources capacity:

Funding

Committee notes that every presentation and written submission stated that inadequate funding is a significant barrier to community capacity for participation. The presentations and written submissions highlighted three major funding sources: the GNWT's Interim Resource Management Assistance Program (IRMA), the federal government's Northern Participant Funding (NPF) Program, and the Northern Regulatory Initiative (NRI), also with the Federal government.

Committee heard that IRMA funding can be inadequate to meet the needs of some Indigenous groups. We heard that the current per capita funding model does not reflect actual financial requirements and fails to cover essential costs such as staffing, travel, technical expertise, and report development. As a result, Indigenous governments shared that they may not be able to participate in consultations, respond to MVLWB notifications or fully participate in regulatory processes thus undermining the ability for an Indigenous government or community to fully advocate for its interests in land and resource management.

Committee also heard from numerous sources that the IRMA funding model, although an important funding stream, is problematic in how it is disbursed. Because IRMA funding is allocated on a year-to-year basis, recipients face difficulty retaining staff. The lack of multi-year funding leads to high turnover, loss of trained personnel, and recurring capacity gaps. Stable, multi-year funding is critical to support long-term capacity development.

The NPF Program supports Indigenous governments, organizations, and Northerners in participating meaningfully in impact assessment processes under land claim agreements across the territories. In 2023, the program was expanded to include participation in regulatory processes; however, funding for this new component remains limited.

CIRNAC presented on the NRI in their public briefing, noting that NRI will provide $40 million over 7 years to support Northern regulatory processes. Although in its infancy, Committee heard that there may be an opportunity to leverage some of this funding for a number of NWT initiatives as well as feed into secondments and capacity building for Indigenous governments and the GNWT, although the full potential and reach of these funds is not clear.

Considering the consistent and widespread concerns raised throughout Committee's review, it is evident that current funding mechanisms are not meeting the needs of Indigenous governments and organizations in the NWT. The limitations of existing programs—particularly the inadequate and unstable nature of IRMA funding, the restricted scope of the NPF program, and the early-stage development of the NRI—underscore a critical gap in support for meaningful Indigenous participation in regulatory and consultation processes. Without reliable, adequate, and multi-year funding, Indigenous governments are left at a disadvantage, unable to fully engage in decisions that directly affect their lands, resources, and communities.

If the GNWT is serious about improving the regulatory framework, it must demonstrate that commitment by allocating adequate resources without delay. Meaningful progress will not be possible without dedicated staffing, sustained funding, and the internal capacity required to implement reforms effectively and support all participants in the regulatory system. Consequently, Committee makes the following four recommendations with respect to funding:

Timelines

Committee's review highlights challenges with timelines, although there are opposing perspectives. Submissions from Indigenous governments note that the regulatory framework has established increasingly tight timelines to provide assurances to proponents and developers that permitting will occur within a reasonable timeframe. This timeline limits the ability of their regulatory offices to review, process, discuss, develop recommendations, and put a meaningful submission together for the MVLWB. Conversely, the Chamber of Mines and the exploration companies we heard from are concerned that timelines are too long, which may cause companies to miss critical construction and development milestones.

Committee is of the view that improvements to capacity and funding for Indigenous governments and communities—alongside efforts to enhance clarity within the regulatory system, reduce departmental siloing, and ensure that proponents receive consistent information and support throughout the regulatory process—will collectively have a significant positive impact on timelines.

For this reason, Committee will not make additional recommendations specifically related to regulatory timelines, as it believes that addressing these underlying structural issues will be the most effective way to achieve timely, efficient, and inclusive regulatory outcomes.

Recommendations of the 2020 Northwest Territories Environmental Audit

Section 148(1) of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) mandates that environmental audits be carried out in the Mackenzie Valley at least once every five years. These audits are also legal commitments under the Sahtú, Gwich'in, and Tłı̨chǫ Land Claim Agreements.

Environmental Audits were previously conducted in 2005, 2010, and 2015. While the next Environmental Audit is expected in 2025, the2020 NWT Environmental Audit offered a territory-wide assessment, encompassing both the Mackenzie Valley and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). It evaluated key areas including: (a) the use of environmental trend data—particularly on water quality and quantity—in decision-making; (b) the effectiveness of cumulative impact monitoring; (c) the functionality of the Mackenzie Valley regulatory system (excluding the ISR); and (d) the responsiveness of parties to recommendations from previous audits.

The Audit ultimately found that the GNWT is not meeting expectations in several foundational areas, including land use planning, community engagement, finalizing land claims, and supporting community well-being. Of particular concern, many of the 40 recommendations issued to the GNWT and the Land and Water Boards were carried over from the 2015 Audit, signaling a persistent failure to act.

Committee heard repeatedly from participants urging the GNWT to fully implement the 2020 Audit recommendations, and indeed, many of the themes explored through Committee's study, and its recommendations, are duplicative of the Audit findings.

Had the GNWT addressed the Audit's findings with the necessary gravity and acted on its recommendations, much of the work prompting this Committee Report might have been unnecessary.

The lack of implementation not only undermines the integrity of the Audit process but also erodes trust in the government's commitment to effective environmental management and regulatory improvement. Therefore, Committee makes the following recommendation:

Mackenzie Valley Operational Dialogue

Similar to the recommendations of the 2020 NWT Environmental Audit, Committee notes that the recommendations and work done through the MVOD remains largely unfinished, although Committee notes that some of the working groups have made progress on some issues.

Committee agrees with the MVOD recommendations, noting that many are duplicative of the Environmental Audit findings, and therefore presents the following recommendation:

COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS

In addition to the themes where Committee has identified the opportunity to make recommendations to the GNWT, there are a number of additional observations that we noted in our review and wish to highlight.

Overarching Context of the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act

Committee has noted challenges regarding the continued application of the MVRMA, a piece of federal legislation, in the context of the post-devolution governance framework in the NWT. Participants in our study, as well as others, have noted that greater territorial control over the legislation and associated regulatory frameworks could enhance the GNWT's ability to manage resources and build more direct and responsive relationships with Indigenous governments as they manage their traditional territories - all key components of reconciliation if done properly.

At the same time, Indigenous governments noted in their submissions that ongoing implementation and evolution of the MVRMA framework is also necessary.

While Committee acknowledges that changes to federal legislation such as the MVRMA fall outside the scope of this study's mandate, we recognize the significance of the issues raised and the need for ongoing improvement. The observation underscores the evolving governance landscape in the North and highlights a need for ongoing dialogue between federal, territorial, and Indigenous governments regarding legislative alignment in a post-devolution, reconciliation context. Committee flags this issue for further consideration and transparent discussion by the appropriate authorities.

Engagement and Meaningful Participation is Constrained by Unsettled Land Claims

Committee has heard from Indigenous governments and communities that unsettled land claims and incomplete self-government agreements significantly limit their ability to meaningfully participate in regulatory processes. Unsettled land claims and incomplete self-government agreements are beyond the scope of Committee's review, although we recognize their outsized importance and implications for Indigenous governments in providing further clarity and certainty, as well as furthering reconciliation.

The broader regulatory framework under the MVRMA is designed to ensure that all land and water uses in the Mackenzie Valley are managed responsibly, with due regard for environmental, social, cultural, and economic well-being, as well as the rights and way of life of Indigenous peoples. The structure of the framework provides an orderly and integrated process for land and resource management decision-making including:

Land Use Plans (LUPs) establish clear guidance on what types of development can occur, where they can occur, and under what conditions—including requirements for local engagement. LUPs also play a central role in managing cumulative effects and in protecting areas of high Indigenous cultural or ecological value.

Land and Water Boards assess specific applications and impose enforceable conditions to ensure compliance with LUPs and to safeguard public and environmental interests.

Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Reviews act as an additional layer of scrutiny for projects that may have broader impacts on Indigenous rights, heritage, or regional sustainability.

Together, these components are intended to give Indigenous governments and local residents confidence that their interests will be meaningfully integrated into the regulatory process and carried through to final decision-making.

However, Committee heard from impacted Indigenous governments who are in regions without settled land claim agreements or self-government agreements, where no land use planning boards have been established, and no land use plans are in place. This results in a critical gap in the regulatory process—removing an important mechanism for incorporating Indigenous perspectives and values into early decision-making. Without a land use plan to guide development and inform subsequent regulatory reviews, key social, cultural, and economic considerations are not given the same weight or procedural protection, weakening the integrity of the co-management system.

Cumulative Effects Management

Committee consistently heard concerns that the current regulatory review process under the MVRMA is not adequately equipped to assess and manage cumulative environmental effects across multiple land and water permits within Traditional Territories. While cumulative effects are acknowledged within the existing framework, the mechanisms for their effective evaluation and mitigation remain underdeveloped.

This concern, echoed in the 2020 NWT Environmental Audit, highlights the pressing need for the GNWT to respond meaningfully and in a timely manner to Audit recommendations. Indigenous governments emphasized the limitations of the current system in accounting for landscape fragmentation, project interactions, and the combined impacts of climate change, contaminant migration, and regional socio-environmental pressures. Furthermore, Committee notes that enhancing public access and participation in regulatory processes was identified as a key strategy to improve the recognition and consideration of cumulative effects. Committee also observes that the GNWT's current approach to integrating climate change into regulatory decisions appears insufficient.

There remains a critical need for improved tools, methodologies, and institutional capacity to support the effective assessment and management of cumulative environmental effects—particularly in a manner that reflects Indigenous rights, stewardship responsibilities, and the principles of long-term environmental sustainability.

Legislative and Regulatory Issues: Perceived Duplication and Uncertainty in Financial Security and Surface Lease Processes

During Committee's review, proponents described the current approach to financial security as creating uncertainty. There is a perception that after completing a comprehensive, transparent process with the LWBs—where reclamation requirements are assessed, evidence is reviewed, and security amounts are set—they may face additional requests for information (supplemental to board processes) from the GNWT when applying for surface leases.

One example, brought forward by the Chamber of Mines in their presentation, is about surface leases for mines. After undergoing a robust environmental assessment and licensing process, which could span years and involve just about every affected party, they get to the GNWT for a surface lease. They're basically told, “That was nice, but now we need to do this again.” I can imagine how frustrating that is.
For our part, we are aware of duplicative regulatory requirements between leases, permits, and licenses. We require management plans in our authorizations, but those don't always match the requirements for leases. Security deposits are also required for most of our authorizations, and the GNWT can set security for leases. For proponents, it's unclear who will duplicate what and how, creating uncertainty. LWB Public Presentation, July 10, 2024

This layered approach creates uncertainty and can undermine confidence in the regulatory system, particularly when there seems to be a lack of transparency and understanding by proponents of what the requirements are or how they will be applied for securities.

Committee also heard concerns that the GNWT's surface lease process seems to duplicate regulatory functions already addressed through the LWB's processes. Stakeholders and one of the Indigenous governments reported that environmental and reclamation conditions are sometimes reintroduced in contractual lease negotiations, despite already being regulated through the board process. This perceived duplication is viewed as counterproductive and contrary to the principles of the integrated co-management regime established under modern treaties.

Furthermore, industry representatives expressed concern about the extent of ministerial discretion in the lease approval process. In some cases, significant time and financial resources have been invested—sometimes over $100,000—into negotiating leases, only for operations to remain vulnerable to delays or cancellations due to discretionary decisions. This uncertainty can affect project financing and timelines, especially when leases are a prerequisite for securing funding at the operational stage.

These observations underscore the need for greater coordination, transparency, and clarity of roles between the GNWT and the LWBs. It is important that regulatory responsibilities, requirements across the project lifecycle, and expectations are clearly defined and communicated publicly.

Committee further notes growing concern regarding the development of requirements and regulations related to financial security, reclamation, land leases, and other land tenure instruments. Specifically, there is apprehension that these frameworks are being developed without public transparency or engagement, despite previous commitments by the responsible departments. Committee considers the absence of meaningful consultation to be unacceptable and is committed to a more detailed examination of these issues. Committee intends to undertake public hearings on this matter during the 20th Legislative Assembly.

Indigenous Values and Traditional Knowledge

Committee heard that, while the MVEIRB and the LWBs are mandated to consider socio-economic and Indigenous interests during preliminary screenings, the structure and timelines of the current permitting process can constrain meaningful engagement and the integration of Indigenous concerns. Unless an full Environmental Assessment where significant impacts are anticipated there are limited mechanisms to ensure that socio-economic and cultural impacts are addressed or mitigated through enforceable conditions.

This is particularly problematic for Indigenous governments such as the Samba K'e First Nation, who are raising broad and deeply rooted concerns—ranging from cultural protection to community health—under a regulatory framework primarily focused on water use and waste deposition. Many of these concerns fall outside the MVLWB's jurisdiction, forcing Indigenous communities to rely on the voluntary cooperation of proponents.

Committee observes that while traditional knowledge is recognized under section 60.1 of the MVRMA, in practice, participants find its meaningful inclusion is hindered by compressed review timelines and limited capacity. The current permitting process does not provide adequate time for communities to conduct internal reviews, hold community consultations, analyze findings, and obtain leadership approvals. As a result, Indigenous knowledge and perspectives—though acknowledged in principle—are not being consistently or effectively integrated into project assessments.

Recommendations of the 2020 Northwest Territories Environmental 2025 Northwest Territories Environmental Audit

Committee observes that the 2025 Northwest Territories Environmental Audit report is scheduled to be released in June 2025. Pursuant to the findings of the 2025 Audit, Committee may wish to do further work on this matter, including making additional recommendations to the GNWT.

CONCLUSION

This concludes the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment Report on the Review of Land Use Permitting and Water Licensing Regulatory Framework.

Committee looks forward to the Government's response to these recommendations.