Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2013

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Since the bill clarifies roles and responsibilities for the NIRB and the NPC, as well as creating the ability for greater cooperation between them, do you feel this will allow the board and the commission to become more efficient?

[Pierre Gratton]

I would say so, yes.

[Rick Meyers]

I would hope so. There's no reason that it shouldn't.

The boards, both in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, are products of land claim agreements—very important land claim agreements. When boards on both sides of that border, if you like, came into being, they had less capacity. They were just starting out. They were brand new to the regulatory framework and regulatory processes. They're co-management boards, so they provide opportunities for aboriginal and community participation in the process.

Since they've been put in place, they've all matured. They have very good technical capacity. They have a much better sense of regulatory framework and the importance of good legislation.

I think that's why we support it. I can't stress that enough.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

The Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act provides for a more streamlined process for review of project proposals. Do you feel it's fair for all the stakeholders involved?

[Pierre Gratton]

Yes.

As I mentioned in our brief, we hope there are opportunities for comprehensive studies to be reviewed more expeditiously than the maximum two years less a day provided for in this legislation. What we've seen recently is that the NIRB has been operating very efficiently and effectively, so there's an expectation at this point that they will definitely work within the timelines, and probably well within them. That's certainly very encouraging for us.

[Rick Meyers]

If I could add to that, it's the responsibility of our colleagues with the Nunavut Planning Commission to ensure that stakeholders' interests and values are considered, and we have faith that they will certainly do that.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Regarding the consultation process by the Mining Association of Canada with its stakeholders, about how many consultation meetings did they participate in with Nunavut?

[Rick Meyers]

I don't know the exact number. It was about four or five over about a year and a half. They were day-long or two-day meetings—fairly comprehensive work sessions. We went through aspects of the bill from top to bottom.

I would compliment the government for taking us through that and allowing us the time to provide the comprehensive responses we have submitted over the years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to Mr. Valeriote for seven minutes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you all for coming before the committee today.

I'm new to this committee, filling in for Dr. Carolyn Bennett, so I hope you'll bear with me on my questions.

Pierre, Rick, and Nadim, you've all talked about the value of land use planning, and I know about that from my former career. You probably understand the resources, financial and human, that are required to adequately address proper planning issues—the investigating, the experts you have to bring before you to talk about the impact. Paul spoke of the thousands of kilometres of coastline and millions of acres that are at stake here.

Do you feel that their request for proper funding to adequately execute their responsibilities is a fair one? If there is an inadequacy in the legislation right now, do you feel that it should be addressed and amended?

[Rick Meyers]

I certainly do.

From my experience, most of the boards across the north have been marginally funded, if you like, if not underfunded. They do get the work done and deliver good product, but they do it at some challenge. I've seen situations in which they were waiting for appointments and waiting for budgets to be approved before they could move forward.

I think it's very important that the co-management boards be funded properly. It obviously allows them to have higher professional expertise, which is absolutely important in reviewing any development as well as in considering any community impacts.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes.

[Nadim Kara]

From the exploration perspective, the significance of land use planning can't be overstated, in the sense that exploration dollars flow where they're allowed to flow, and if communities don't want us to flow somewhere, land use planning is the mechanism through which they can tell us that. Therefore, to have those processes resourced effectively is critical to reduce conflict and ensure our industry can generate those benefits where people want them.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Then you would support an amendment to adequately fund the planners, the commission.

Paul, I just want to get to them, and if there's time I'll come back to you.

Sharon, is this the first time you've seen the six recommended amendments that were submitted by Nadim?

[Sharon Ehaloak]

Yes, it is.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Could you please comment on each of them? Give your response to them, and if you feel you are not able to because you haven't had time to look at them, would you like to reserve the right to make submissions following this meeting so that you can adequately respond to them?

[Sharon Ehaloak]

I would ask that we reserve the right, but I would ask that my colleague, Mr. Boyd, be able to speak to the amendments that are being proposed.

[Adrian Boyd, Director, Policy, Nunavut Planning Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As was mentioned, we haven't had adequate time to consider these amendments, but I would say in relation to timelines that the commission has worked with the government and NTI and the Nunavut Impact Review Board for at least seven years and has identified a reasonable timeline that we felt was suitable for the commission, with the two staff we have, to be able to process the huge number of applications that will come our way once the bill is enacted. We estimate it would take us from reviewing about 300 conformity determinations right now up to about 2,000 after the act.

Regarding schedule 3, the exemption lists, we'd have to look at those. We have an opportunity through the land use plan to identify uses that could be exempt. Lots of land use plans do identify uses that are not required, but our concern would be the sheer timeline for completing the schedule and how that might impact enactment of the act in the future.

On minor variances, a minor variance is a standard land use planning process. Land use planning is a public process. The land claims agreement requires that the land use planning process include the active participation of Inuit and governments to reflect the priorities and values of residents and communities. That's why minor variances have the public review option. Basically, if an application or a request for a minor variance comes in and the commission posts that variance and makes it public, people have an opportunity to appeal that change in the rule, given the requirement that land use planning be a public process.

It's standard professional practice. It's not unusual. All minor variance processes have a public review component if there is an appeal to change the requirement of the land use plan.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Adrian, before you go on, I want to add another element to the question so that you can respond, because I may run out of time.

Given the reduced timelines they are speaking of in their recommendations, I'd like you to also comment on the specific need for proper funding in order to respond to possible reductions in timelines.

Carry on.

[Adrian Boyd]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On offences, again, it's standard legislation. I was surprised to hear that industry was unaware. “Unusual and unnecessary”, I think, was the phrase.

We were just in Grise Fiord in Nunavut last week. People said that an airstrip had been ploughed and made without their knowledge and without their consent. If someone violates the land use plan and there's no offence, what's the point of the land use plan? Offences are standard in land use planning. If we look at downtown Ottawa, they're redeveloping areas. If you go ahead in contradiction of the land use plan, you receive a stop work order. Your building could be torn down or altered. It's standard land use planning practice.

Grandfathering, again, is standard land use planning practice. I and my associates here have been working on this legislation, this file, for seven years, the three of us. Grandfathering is a big deal for land use planning. What we were looking at when we first introduced grandfathering is, again, standard professional practice. The feedback we got was that in Nunavut, 60% of the area was staked, so as soon as you registered your interest through a mineral claim, you were exempt from new terms in the land use plan. Then the land use plan would have applied to only 40% of Nunavut.

This is why grandfathering, again a standard practice, is so important to land use planning. Otherwise, once I've staked a mineral claim, I'm exempt from the plan forever. That's not how land use planning works. The point is that you use a piece of land for a particular period of time. Once you're done with that particular land, if you're in contravention of a land use plan, eventually the next user has to comply with the land use plan.

Regarding the five-year review of the act, I don't know if we have any comments on that or not.

Sharon will speak to funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We are unfortunately out of time, Mr. Valeriote, but I do know that there's a desire for some responses as well as some additional clarification. I think what we'll do is move on to the next questioner, but I would encourage colleagues, if you have time.... I think our witnesses would like to seek some clarification and add some things.

Go ahead, Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Could you ask if my colleagues are content to let them just briefly respond to that final question? They might consent to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Go ahead, Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I would agree only if we're going to agree to do it for every member. I think we are either consistent or not. Other members have an opportunity to ask for clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

That's why I'm saying I think we have to move on with the questioners, but I do want colleagues to recognize that I'm getting indication that there's desire from all of our witnesses to respond to comments that have been made.

I will move on to Mr. Rickford.