Thank you, Minister, for coming.
Just to be on the record, I also want to correct Mr. Leef's statement. The NDP supports the devolution aspect of this legislation. The challenge for us is the inclusion of the changes in the MVRMA.
You quoted from the Tlicho Agreement, so I'd like to quote from the Tlicho letter of July 12, 2013. In this letter they said:
The Tlicho Agreement cannot be interpreted to say that Canada, on its own volition, can force the larger board into existence.
Later on, they talk about ministerial authority:
The proposal to expand the Minister's role and authority is not provided for in the Tlicho Agreement. As such, it is an attempt by Canada to use 22.4.1 as a “Trojan horse” to fundamentally revise not only the structure of the Boards but also the powers of the federal Minister therein. The expansion and entrenchment of authority by one Party of its own powers, all without a proper negotiation, will fundamentally impact our carefully negotiated constitutionally protected rights and have profound impacts on our way of life. We have not agreed to any such expansion of federal Ministerial power. Nor have we had any reasonable engagement with Canada to have our interests incorporated into the legislative proposal on Ministerial powers.
In that light, I'd like to refer to proposed subsection 50.1(1) in clause 131 of the bill, concerning the minister's binding policy directions on land-use plans. In the briefing notes that were provided with regard to policy direction, it says:
The federal Minister may, after consultation with a planning board, give written policy directions...
and so on.
With regard to this, it seems like a pretty broad policy that the minister will now be able to unilaterally impose, and this would include things like relevant Treasury Board Secretariat policies, new technologies, and roles and responsibilities related to aboriginal consultation. Can you tell me why those kinds of ministerial powers were entrenched in this legislation?