Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 6 - Evidence - February 13, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 13, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 9:01 a.m. to examine the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia and I am chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators, as well as any members of the public with us in the room or listening through the webcast. I'm now going to ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston, from the Northwest Territories.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Hello, my name is Pierrette Ringuette and I am from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Black: Doug Black from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Hello, I'm Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
The Chair: In addition, I would like to introduce the staff we have supporting us. From the Library of Parliament, we have Marc LeBlanc and Sam Banks. Our clerk is Lynn Gordon.
Today is the eighth meeting of our pre-study hearing on Bill C-15, the short title of which is the ``Northwest Territories Devolution Act.'' This bill was introduced in the House of Commons on December 3, 2013.
It gives me great pleasure today to welcome Mr. John Pollard, a resident of Hay River, Northwest Territories. On May 3, 2010, Mr. Pollard was appointed Canada's chief federal negotiator to lead consultations and negotiations with the Government of the Northwest Territories and Aboriginal leadership in the Northwest Territories on structural changes to land and water boards as part of the work on the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Territorial Lands Act. We also have with us Mr. Daniel Pagowski, legal counsel with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Department Canada.
Mr. Pollard, I believe you have a presentation to make. I appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to come to Ottawa and present to this committee, and I'm sure everyone will have questions for you. The floor is yours, sir.
John Pollard, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for the invitation, and I look forward to interacting with the senators on this very important bill. If there's something that I don't explain properly, please interrupt me.
By way of background, in May 2010 the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada announced Canada's Action Plan to Improve Northern Regulatory Regimes in the Northwest Territories. The main objective of the action plan was to complete and strengthen the current regulatory regimes in the North to ensure an effective, predictable regime that would provide greater certainty to northerners and industry. As a result, the Government of Canada began pursuing legislative amendments to the various relevant resource management acts. A key component of the action plan was to make changes to the land and water board structure in the Northwest Territories.
The Government of Canada's goal in terms of amending the land and water management regime in the North was twofold: Make changes to the structure in the Mackenzie Valley in the short term and have a Northwest Territories- wide land and water board in the long term. That's where I came in as chief federal negotiator. My job was to look at the restructuring of the board and consult on that particular restructuring.
The long-term objective would have required amending the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. I should point out that the land and water regime in the Northwest Territories springs from land claims. There are four settled land claims in the Northwest Territories. There is the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, and then there are three others: the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and the Tlicho agreements. Each of the three land claims in the Mackenzie Valley — the Tlicho, the Sahtu and the Gwich'in — contain clauses that allow for a board for a larger area. That was not the case in the Inuvialuit agreement, and what would have had to happen is the parties — Canada and the Inuvialuit and presumably the GNWT — would have had to agree to open that agreement up to make changes. Quite frankly, there was no appetite on either side for doing that, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, the immediate focus became the land and water board structure in the Mackenzie Valley.
The three settled claims that I mentioned in the Mackenzie Valley — Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho — sprang from the fact that the comprehensive Dene-Metis claim that was initialed on April 9, 1990, failed. That was where the Dene and the Metis of the Mackenzie Valley got together and negotiated a claim with Canada. The claim was initialed but was never ratified. Once that comprehensive claim fell to pieces, regional claims started up. The first of those regional claims was the Gwich'in claim.
I went back to look at that initial document to see just what the blueprint was at that time, and section 28.4.1 called for a single land and water board established for the Mackenzie Valley.
I want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, this claim was never ratified. However, you could see that, as the regional claims started up, they were using this as a blueprint. The failed claim became the blueprint for the regional claims. I think that's why it is written into each of those three claims the clauses that allow for a board for a larger area. In the Gwich'in claim, signed April 22, 1992, it's section 24.4.6. In the Sahtu claim, signed September 6, 1993, it's 25.4.6. In the Tlicho claim, signed August 25, 2003, it's 22.4.1.
To be clear, each of these claims provided for a regional land and water board for the settlement area of that claim. Clauses went on further to say that by legislation Canada could form a board for a larger area, larger than the settlement region, and if that happened then the regional panels would go away and the one board would take over for the Mackenzie Valley. That was the objective, to realign the boards.
I should tell you again that if you are appointed to a regional panel in any of those three settled claims, you are automatically appointed to the main body, which is the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.
That means there are four boards. There are three regional panels taking care of the settlement areas, and then there's the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, which takes care of trans-boundary issues between land claim areas and settlement areas, something from the Gwich'in to the Sahtu. The Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board also deals with applications coming from the unsettled regions of the Northwest Territories, which are known primarily as the Dehcho region and the South Slave region.
In effect, there are 20 people at the present time on the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board: three regional panels of five, and five on the board itself.
The existing act that I looked at also allows, in section 108, for two more regional panels. I'm assuming that was set aside for the Dehcho region and for the South Slave region. As the legislation sits right now, before this amendment, there are 20 people sitting on the board, with a potential for 10 more.
Having put all that together, I then set about seeing if I could accomplish what the minister wanted, which is one land and water board for the Mackenzie Valley. There were initial meetings. In all, I had at least 54 meetings. More than 25 were with First Nation groups. For some of those meetings, all of the First Nations were in the room at the same time. Many of those meetings were with industry. We did a first round by saying, ``This is what we're thinking about; how do you feel?'' I will be honest with you; it was a resounding ``no.'' The people in the settled regions said, ``No, we don't want to lose our regional panel.'' The people in the unsettled regions said, ``We want more regional panels,'' and those people who are negotiating claims right now said, ``We want more.'' Even though the legislation allowed for 30, there was expectation that it could go higher than that as each claim was settled and everybody got a regional panel.
As I say, I'm being honest when I say it wasn't widely accepted at all, so I cannot respond in a positive manner to those two concerns from people.
As we went through the meetings, it was clear that people needed to see more than just the letters that I had been sending out and the meetings that we had had, so legislation was drafted that reflected the changes that I wanted to make in the structure of the board.
Before those drafts, I went to the minister and sought approval for an 11-person board, which would consist of a chairperson, five nominees or appointees from the Aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories and five appointees from government: three from the federal government and two from the territorial government. The two from the territorial government are nominated to the minister, and the minister ultimately makes the call. So it would be five and five, and then I suggested that the chairperson be appointed directly by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
I got the approval from I think it was then Minister Duncan to do that, so we put together draft legislation and circulated it. It wasn't very popular. People still saw that we were taking away the regional panels, but they did start to respond.
One of the first concerns they had was moving the regional panel to the board in Yellowknife, which is far away from where the action is. For instance, with the major project in the Sahtu right now, where this fracking thing is going on, they were afraid they would not be able to see the board at work. I thought it was reasonable for them to say, ``Hey, you're taking this away and you're moving it to Yellowknife.''
So we made an arrangement in the legislation for the chairperson to form a smaller subcommittee with a minimum of three people. I think it was reasonable to assume that those three people could travel to a region so the people of the region could hear the application before the panel and they could see the work being done. A decision of that three- person subcommittee is a decision of the board, so it's not like a committee going out and fact-finding; this is a decision-making body.
That was one of the ways I tried to alleviate this fear that decision making was being taken out of the region. That appears on page 106 of the amending bill. Clause 136, proposed subsection 56(1), is where we accommodate that concern.
After putting that out, there was another local concern, which was there was no guarantee that an Aboriginal appointee from that region was going to be on that three-person subcommittee, and that was true as well. So we went back and looked at it. We couldn't write into the legislation for sure that that person would be there because we wouldn't know if the person was ill or on vacation, et cetera. As much as possible, however, on page 106 of the amending legislation, in proposed subsection 56(3), we have accommodated that by saying that the chairperson should make every effort of right of first refusal for a person from the region to be able to be at that hearing.
The next concern we were able to deal with in some respects is they were concerned we were taking things out of the region, such as support for the board and so on and so forth. The department and the minister agreed that during the implementation phase, there would be discussion amongst the Government of the Northwest Territories, Aboriginal groups and the Government of Canada about what resources need to be in each region to support the board. So I think we were able to allay those fears.
The next thing that came up was the appointment of the chair by the minister. With the other boards, what happens is the board gets together and they decide amongst themselves or they can recommend from outside the board a name to the minister of who should be the chairperson. I strayed away from that process. I recommended to the minister that the minister should appoint the chair. I think this is a very important board. It has great responsibility and we need to get the right person at the end of the table who understands the North, how boards work and the legislation and administration, et cetera. I made that recommendation to the minister, and he accepted it.
The pushback from the Aboriginal groups was the minister doesn't have to talk to the board before the appointment of the chair. That was reasonable, so I went back to the minister and the minister said, ``Okay, I don't mind polling the board and talking to them before I make the appointment.'' So that was put into the legislation, but not in the first instance, because at first there would be no board, but each chair after, the minister will discuss it with the board before making that appointment. Again, we were able to accommodate those concerns. I think you will find that on page 96, proposed subsection 12(2.1).
There were other concerns, Mr. Chairman. Industry was concerned that we were changing a system they were familiar with. Some people in industry said, ``Yes, it needs to be done, and we need to get this down to a manageable size because we can see it growing and growing.'' Some industry members said, ``We're pretty comfortable with the system that there is; we recognize that change needs to come, but we're worried about losing the continuity that we have at the present time with the existing panels,'' particularly the Wek'èezhìi, because Wek'èezhìi deals with very large files. Those diamond mines are very big files. Anyway, there was a concern from industry in that regard.
Industry was also concerned about what happens if they have an application before the board and then the changes occur. That was heard clearly by the department, and the department has addressed those issues raised by industry by putting in transitional clauses. That means that if you are seized with an application, if you are hearing an application as a regional panel and the change occurs, you continue as a regional panel until that application is completed, so it should be seamless for industry in those applications.
The other thing is the expertise that is in those regional panels. There's no guarantee, Mr. Chairman, that we can bring that expertise forward to the new board, and there's not a way to do it in legislation. I have suggested to the minister, and I think he's amenable, that attempts be made with the other nominees and appointors around the table to bring that expertise through the system somehow and get them on the new board. If people are willing, I think it can be done.
Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, that's where I am at the present time. If you would like, I could read into the record what the appointment process is for each of those boards, or I can just open it up to questions. It's up to you.
The Chair: Maybe you should actually do that. That will clarify it a little bit more before we start with questions. I'm just watching the time. I want to give the senators some time to ask questions, but I also want to have you, because you were such an important part at the end of these negotiations, enlighten us on your thoughts about that.
Mr. Pollard: Mr. Chairman, the suggested composition contained in the legislation is an 11-person board, which includes the chairperson. The chair is appointed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Five persons are nominated or appointed by First Nations organizations or governments. When I say ``appointed or nominated,'' the Tlicho claim is a special claim. They have in their claim an ability to direct appoint to boards. They have to consult with the minister, but there is no veto. They have a little more leeway than the other people. Some people are suggesting to the minister who they would like to see on the board, but the Tlicho direct appoints.
There are five persons appointed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, two of whom are nominated by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
That's the makeup of the board as I have suggested it to the minister and as contained in this draft legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate those words very much.
A lot of the concern that we heard was that people from those settled regions who have boards in place already and that we are told are functioning well feel that their viewpoints won't be heard through the larger board once the legislation comes into effect and that decisions will be made that will not be acceptable to the people in those regions. I would like you to address that a little bit. I would add to that that if industry were going into a settled area, it is at least my experience, living in northern British Columbia where there are settled land claims, the oil and gas industry will have a very close association with the band of the area that they're going into. We have an oil and gas commission, for instance, in British Columbia, headquartered in Fort St. John, but if an oil company is going to drill wells in the Fort Nelson region, they don't talk to the First Nations around Fort St. John. They actually go to the Fort Nelson First Nations and discuss with them what they're going to do and get the social licence, as many people speak about, to do their work.
Would you think the same thing would take place in the Northwest Territories and that industry, whether it is mining or oil and gas or anything, will actually work very closely with those smaller boards, those regions, to make sure that they're listening to the concerns of those people, and then the decisions would be made by the larger board at the end of the day? Would that be a correct way for me to interpret it? What assurance do those people in the settled areas have that the water board will actually make decisions that reflect what they want?
Mr. Pollard: Before anybody, be it a company or a municipality or whomever, ventures onto private land, Aboriginal land, government land, they have to get permission to be there. If the concern is, ``What's going to be happening on my land?'' there is a dialogue before an application ever gets to the board. There's a dialogue there that says, ``Yes, I will let you go on my land to do this.'' The board is only going to say how it should be done. It is not going to be saying if it should be done; it is saying how it should be done.
In the first instance, an Aboriginal group, First Nation government, can say, ``No, you can't go on our land.'' If they do say they can go on their land and then the board holds a hearing, as I have said, if it's of major concern, they can say to the chairperson, ``You need to send that panel to us so that we can see work being done in our region.'' I think that's contained in the legislation. There's not a guarantee. It doesn't say, ``You must,'' but I think it would be a foolish chairperson that didn't respond to the concerns of a region.
The other thing is that this board is not a political body. It just uses legislation and policy to say, ``This is how you can conduct business on this particular piece of land.'' It is not whether you like the development or you don't like the development. It's, ``You've got permission to be on the land; this is how you should do the development.''
This does not preclude any First Nation or Aboriginal group or any person from an Aboriginal organization saying, ``I want to appear before the board and state my case.''
Yes, there are some fears, and yes there's an attachment to that regional panel, but forming one board does not take away any of their ability to appear in front of the board and make their cases, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Wallace: Good morning, Mr. Pollard. We have had a number of witnesses appear before us. It seems clear that a major part of the focus behind the bill is to create an atmosphere that will encourage further investment and development, with more efficiency in the N.W.T. We've had representatives from industry appear before us and express their thoughts.
We also had an organization called Ecology North, who appeared before us on February 6. Their comment was that they didn't believe there was any evidence to suggest that the regional panels that have existed discourage investment in the North. They therefore felt there was no need to support the position that this larger super-board was needed to encourage this additional investment and development. What is your comment to that?
Mr. Pollard: Senator, I think when you start looking at 20 and then we need to get to the next level, which is the next settled land claim and then the next settled land claim, you are starting to get an awful lot of people on a board. I don't mean any offence, but I think the consistency between the regional panels is not there. Industry is looking for consistency; they're looking for certainty. What industry said to me is this: ``Tell me yes, tell me no, tell me you want more information, but give me an answer.''
If we allow the number of people adjudicating on land and water board issues to get up in the thirties, I think that would muddy the waters. It would be hard to administer. I think it would be difficult for the department to deal with all those boards. It's difficult enough now filling vacancies on the boards that we do have, and I think that's another issue that would come up.
I don't dispute the fact that the regional panels have been handling some big files and doing their work. However, if we look to the future, we need to have a smaller board for that particular region.
Senator Wallace: On February 11, we heard from Mr. Allen Stanzell, 1st Vice-President of the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce. They were supportive of the bill but had some interesting comments and suggestions. I suspect probably through the work you've done you may have heard these before. I will mention a couple of them to you and I would appreciate your comments.
They recommend that there should be clearer criteria to define projects of public concern under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. That, of course, is relevant because the regulator will determine when interventions are appropriate. I will read to you briefly what was in a part of their presentation.
Clear criteria do not exist for determining public concern, and that leaves the regulator with an open-ended obligation to accept such interventions without regard for merit.
The critical point here is to establish criteria for defining projects of public concern or thresholds that limit interventions to those of merit.
Again, from their point of view, they want to streamline the process as much as probably. What is your comment on that recommendation by the chamber?
Mr. Pollard: My job was only to deal with the structure of the board, not those other issues, but I heard them as well.
Senator Wallace: Yes, I am sure you did.
Mr. Pollard: I think that there is a concern from industry that sometimes the board is forced into doing something that in industry's eyes is not really necessary at a particular time, and I think that's where it's coming from. I'm not able to comment on that any further. I did hear the same concern, though.
Senator Wallace: There was one other recommendation they made along the same line. I suspect your response will be the same, so I will leave my questions at that.
The Chair: This committee has been fortunate for a whole host of reasons, including the senators who sit around here, but on this particular bill we have the pleasure of having two former premiers of the Northwest Territories, Dennis Patterson, who couldn't be with us, but also Senator Sibbeston, who is with us today. We are happy that he is here because he brings that northern perspective.
Senator Sibbeston: Thank you.
Mr. Pollard and I were colleagues; we were government ministers in the 1980s. As you can see, he is very honest, forthright, frank and everyone in the North is like that — non-partisan and very honest. That is our contribution to the South.
Senator Ringuette: We actually make good use of it.
Senator Sibbeston: John, you have been in the North a long time. We come from a period of time in the 1960s and 1970s where the government was just being introduced into the North and industry was coming. Native people didn't have very much say in any of the development that occurred. Through the land claims process they have gained so much. One of the things they have truly gained is where these boards have had a say in the development that occurs. Can you comment on that?
There has been an evolution or a growth in that regard. I think Aboriginal people in the North are slowly getting involved in development. They are in business and are employed. I think there has been a radical improvement and change over the years. The idea of all of this is to make the regulatory system more efficient and expeditious so projects can get going.
In your judgment, you obviously have had a hand in doing this. It's not in accord with all the Aboriginal people who don't like losing their regional panels, but is it your judgment that it will still work in the end and that it will prove that the changes we have before us will work satisfactorily?
Mr. Pollard: Thank you for that question.
The senator is right, the North is growing up and so are the people who live there and so are the people who are from there.
There's an emotional attachment between Aboriginal people and the land and the water. That will always be there. They are very sensitive about things that are going to happen on the land, how it will affect the water and so forth, and I respect that.
The senator is right that as resources have been developed in the Northwest Territories, you have seen First Nations companies, Aboriginal people and Aboriginal private business people become involved in that process. If you ever go up to Yellowknife and see Tlicho Logistics supporting the diamond mines, what has happened is wonderful.
The Aboriginal people have taken a large stake of the economy of the Northwest Territories and they stand to take more as development occurs. I think companies have become more sensitive to the fact that they will have to make a deal here in order to be able to get their mine or their oil and gas going.
To answer the question that the senator puts to me, I believe it's a natural evolution that these regional panels now become one central body. I think that's why it was written into the land claims, because they were anticipating the full circle coming back to the original Dene-Metis claim — one single board for the Mackenzie Valley. I'm trying to complete that circle. As I say, there's an emotional attachment to those panels that I respect, but I think we need to let that go and move on with the economy.
Senator Black: Thank you very much, Mr. Pollard, for not only begin here today but for the tremendous work that you have obviously done.
My first question is really a personal one. Given the complexity of this file, did you start it with a full head of hair?
Mr. Pollard: I started this file with a lot more hair than I have now and a lot less wrinkles, I'll tell you.
Senator Black: I can imagine. Thank you for that. I have a couple of questions for the purpose of the record.
In terms of timing, as I understand it, Mr. McCrank's report preceded the work you were requested to do. Is that right?
Mr. Pollard: That's correct.
Senator Black: The penultimate recommendation of Mr. McCrank was that there were two options, in his view, that could have been pursued. Option one is the option that is being pursued, and option two involved, arguably, a greater consultative role of the Aboriginal communities. Are you following where I am? Do you agree with that?
Mr. Pollard: Yes.
Senator Black: Very well. Are you able to comment on why option two would not have been the desirable option?
Mr. Pollard: I think there was a push across southern Canada to change the regulatory system. It was a little different in the North because of the land claims, et cetera, but we were caught up in that process.
I read Mr. McCrank's report and took notice of what he said. Very early on, I think the discussion was that it is better to move to this central board, to this slimmed down board immediately and do the consultation process as the land claims predicted we should, which we did. Let's move right to that process.
Senator Black: Is my understanding correct that after a five-year period there is a statutory requirement or opportunity for the operation of the water board to be reviewed?
Mr. Pollard: I believe that is correct, sir.
Senator Black: We will assume that is correct. If that is correct, would you take any comfort in the fact that if we have gotten that wrong — and I am not presuming for a second that we have — will we have a fulsome opportunity to make corrections?
Mr. Pollard: Yes.
Senator Black: Thank you.
Mr. Pollard: That's the case, but I want to qualify that by saying an awful lot of time, thought, effort and discussion went into this solution I have put forward. I think that if people embrace it and use it properly, and if we put the right people on that board, there will be no cause to look back. I think it will work.
Senator Black: Wonderful. That would be my hope as well, but it is always good to know there is an escape valve or an opportunity for correction if we have overreached in any way.
Mr. Pollard: That's correct.
Senator Black: Very well. Thank you very much.
Senator Ringuette: You have lived in the North for so long. With regard to planning commissions or whatever type of entities, can you tell me if there is a plan for the land both in the Northwest Territories and the Mackenzie Valley? Is there an existing plan for the land in those two regions?
Mr. Pollard: Senator, Mr. McCrank suggested that land use planning was very important to this process. In fact, he still says to this day that a lot of the issues coming before the board might not have to come before the board if there was a land use plan put in place and it was dealt with at that level.
I believe — and you might have to seek information elsewhere on this — that there are now three land use plans that are complete in the Northwest Territories, and others are being worked on. I would add that the importance of land use planning for this board structure is paramount.
Senator Ringuette: Exactly.
Mr. Pollard: Getting those land use plans done is so important because it would ease some of the work of the board simply because they would go to the land use plan and say this, that or the other thing. Companies would be able to say that this is where we can go to look for gold or diamonds or whatever. We would know where all the historic sites, burial grounds and parks and recreation are, so I do believe they are very important.
Senator Ringuette: Who completed those three plans? How much of the territory does it cover?
Mr. Pollard: As a percentage, it's probably less than 50 per cent right now, but other people are working on land use plans at the present time.
I am sorry that I can't answer your question specifically. It is not something I dealt with during this consultation process, but it's certainly an important factor, there's no question.
Senator Ringuette: You say other people are dealing with this land planning issue. My earlier question was: Who completed those three plans? Which entity is now working on the other 50 per cent of the land mass?
Mr. Pollard: The process takes place amongst the federal government, the territorial government and Aboriginal First Nation governments working together on the land use plan, but I hesitate to say who is working on them at the present time. I just know that they are in the works.
Senator Ringuette: Your statement is that land use planning is essential and central to the work of the current and the future board. How much human resources and energy is being invested in covering the Northwest Territories and the Mackenzie Valley with regard to this, prior to putting these boards in place so they will have basic tools with regard to the mandate they will have to ascertain?
That brings me to my next question. Will this super-board be able to override a land use plan?
Mr. Pollard: The land use planning, the land use work going on is outside my bailiwick, but I will ask the department to send a brief to the committee on where the land use planning is at in the Mackenzie Valley.
I'm aware that quite a bit of resources and time have been spent on this at the present time.
Senator Ringuette: It's quite a territory; it's not easy.
Mr. Pollard: Yes.
I want to go back to saying that Mr. McCrank said land use planning should take place; it's very important. But I could see that if we had to wait until the land use plans were done, we would never have gotten this far on the restructuring because it is taking so long.
As a resident up there, some of the difficulties I see is the fact that settled lands haven't yet been determined in the unsettled regions of the Northwest Territories. Land claims negotiation has not been fulfilled in the Dehcho proper, although ADK has signed its claim. I think it will take more time.
I will endeavour to get that information sent over to you.
Senator Ringuette: It's a very important question, and your negotiation of that is in front of us. Will the board be able to override the existing and future land use plans? That is extremely important.
Mr. Pollard: When I got to that fork in the road about forming what is termed a ``super-board,'' there were two options. Option 1 was to maintain the existing board; and option 2 was to form a new board. Option 1 I chose to recommend to the minister simply because there is a very responsible board in place at the present that handles the unsettled regions and the transboundary issues in the Northwest Territories. I have spoken at length to the chair who says that land use plans help us out immensely. I have never heard from him that the board would overrule a land use plan. I can't speak for the board, but I would say it would be unusual.
Senator Ringuette: Do they have, under the bill before us, the power to override? Whether they exercise that power is probably not general, but we need to know if they have the power to override.
Mr. Pollard: Based on legal counsel, no, they do not. They have to abide by those land use plans.
Senator Ringuette: Where would legal counsel be on that?
Mr. Pollard: Mr. Chair, for the record, I am outside my mandate here.
The Chair: Okay. I appreciate the legal opinion that it is ``no.''
Are you happy with that, Senator Ringuette?
Daniel Pagowski, Legal Counsel, Negotiations and Northern Affairs, Aboriginal and Northern Development Canada: I will give you that.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, could you provide us with the area of the bill indicating that they have the power?
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, that is a good question. My experience in B.C., where we have had some large land use plans, for example the Muskwa-Kechikaarea, is that those land use plans are written in stone. They cannot be overridden by any board. There are no go areas. That is the way they are set up. It would be folly to actually think you could do that.
The chair of the land and water board, who we heard from, is a long-term resident from the Northwest Territories. He has an attachment to the land and water there, so we have that assurance, too; but it's good to get the legal opinion. I appreciate that.
Senator Ringuette: Earlier in your presentation, Mr. Pollard, you talked about a blueprint. We had before the committee via video conference the former Premier of Yukon who said that for the Northwest Territories, the bill is very much the same as they have in Yukon, where it appears to be working well.
With regard to the issue of a blueprint, have you used the Yukon devolution agreement? To what extent is there any difference between that and the bill before us?
Mr. Pollard: At the very beginning, I was asked whether I would be looking at other models to get something together for the Northwest Territories. I did not look at other models, and I will tell you why. The land claims in the Northwest Territories are constitutionally protected documents that trump legislation and are very powerful. They dictate how land and water should be managed in the Northwest Territories. In as much as I referred to the failed Dene-Metis claim as a blueprint for the other land claims that have taken place regionally, it was really the land claims that I went back to and said that this is the Northwest Territories, this is how it's been determined it should be done in the Northwest Territories, and this is what I am going to work with. I didn't compare it with any other jurisdictions.
Senator Ringuette: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: That ends the list of questioners.
Mr. Pollard, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for travelling here and bringing those words of wisdom. They helped us an awful lot. I appreciate your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Pagowski, for the information that you will look up. If you provide it to the clerk, the chair will make sure that all members of the committee get it.
Mr. Pagowski: Will do.
Mr. Pollard: Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today; it has been a pleasure.
I made two commitments: One is the status of the land use plans in the Mackenzie Valley; and the second is the legal opinion on whether the board could overrule a land use plan. I just want to make sure it is on the record that I made those commitments. We'll fulfill those commitments. Thank you.
The Chair: Again, if you provide those to the clerk, the clerk will make sure we get them.
We will be dealing with this bill clause-by-clause relatively soon, so I would appreciate it if you could expedite those responses for us.
(The committee adjourned.)