Evidence of meeting #15 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was north.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Eberhard Scherkus  President and Chief Operating Officer, Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited
Chris Hanks  Vice-President, Environmental Affairs, Hope Bay Mining Ltd., Newmont Mining Corporation
Tara Christie  Senior Advisor, External and Government Affairs, Hope Bay Mining Ltd, Newmont Mining Corporation
Tom Hoefer  Executive Director, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines
John Cheechoo  Director, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Brent Murphy  Director, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines
John Merritt  Senior Policy Advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Larry Connell  Vice-President, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Good afternoon, everyone. We're here today, once again, to continue our study of resource development in northern Canada. We have a full panel of witnesses here today. We're probably going to have an abbreviated session, so we'll get right to the presentations.

From Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited, we have Eberhard Scherkus, who is the president and chief operating officer. From Newmont Mining Corporation, we have Chris Hanks, who is the vice-president of environmental affairs at Hope Bay Mining Ltd, and also Tara Christie, who is the senior adviser of external and governmental affairs at Hope Bay Mining Ltd. From the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, we have Tom Hoefer, who is the executive director, Larry Connell, the vice-president, and Brent Murphy, the director. From the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami—Mary Simon isn't here today—we have John Cheechoo, the director, and John Merritt, the senior policy adviser.

Welcome to all of you. We will start the presentations and go through them in the order they appear on the agenda, starting with Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited.

Go ahead with your presentation, please.

3:30 p.m.

Eberhard Scherkus President and Chief Operating Officer, Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited

Thank you.

Welcome, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to hear our story.

Agnico has been around the mining industry for over 54 years. We have six mines, four of which are in Canada: one in Nunavut and three in northwestern Quebec. We first acquired the Meadowbank project a little over five years ago, back in April 2007. We can say that we arrived in Nunavut without any preconceptions. The Meadowbank Mine, as a result of our mine-building program, had the first gold pour on Inuit-owned lands on February 27, 2010.

We then acquired another project located outside of Rankin Inlet, the Meliadine project from Comaplex Minerals on July 6, 2010.

Since we began our activities in Nunavut, the GDP of Nunavut has increased—by 11% in 2010—largely due to Meadowbank.

We can also say that of our 750 employees on site, 38% or almost 300, are Inuit.

We have spent almost 43%, or a total of $665 million, on northern businesses in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut. However, most of the jobs we have created are entry-level and semi-skilled jobs.

Looking back over our five years, we note some of our challenges and observations. I'll start from the beginning of the mine development process.

Getting access to Inuit-owned lands for exploration is still a very long and very difficult process.

You'll also hear today that environmental permitting is not keeping pace with the development of a mining project, especially a project that has very limited windows for shipping. Also, the process appears to be focused on the process rather than on the results.

We have had some issues with respect to NIRB. The process is difficult even for low-impact activities.

IIBA negotiations are rather different. They're new for most. They're new for the Kivalliq Inuit Association. They're new for us. So there's a learning curve involved. However, our experience at the negotiating table is that they tend to be front-ended, and they also tend to restrict competitive business process by favouring northern businesses.

There does not appear to be enough emphasis on building Nunavut economic capacity and competitiveness in a global investment market.

Education and training have often been seen as the responsibility of the project promoters, and I'll talk a bit more about that.

With regard to geography and logistics, planning is key and represents a very large component of operating costs.

We've also learned that we have a lot to learn from each other's culture.

Challenges exist with respect to permitting. Here's just a summary of those related to Meadowbank. We currently have 202 conditions that we have to respect. We've already submitted our 2009 and 2010 annual reports. These documents are in excess of 4,000 pages each. We have not received any comments on either document up to two years later, so there is a lack of capacity.

The industry is taking a lead role in training. We have acquired an almost one million dollar simulator to help train Inuit in haul truck driving. We are a sponsor of the diamond drilling school in Arviat. We are also a sponsor of the Kivalliq Mine Training Society. We invested over $1.7 million in training last year.

Our view is that the governments are more focused on social programs than on providing skilled labour for the resource industry. We currently have only four Inuit mechanic apprentices at Meadowbank because of the high number of high school dropouts. They just can't pass the trade entrance exam.

The Canadian aboriginal skills employment program will be terminated unless there is further funding. We see more issues for the future.

When you look at our overall conclusions and recommendations, resource development does create opportunities. Other jurisdictions have realized this. However, we have to realize that our business is very cyclical. We must seize the opportunity when it is presented to us.

We've heard about education a lot. Training is the wave of the future, and as we've said many times, it is very expensive to import skilled labour from other parts of the country.

Infrastructure has to be improved. Other jurisdictions are investing to promote access and development. We need improvements to airports, ports, communication, and housing to be able to house the labour force that will be required. The permitting process has to be streamlined. It is still too long and, most importantly, in the world around us, too unpredictable from an investment point of view.

Also, high IIBAs should not have a negative impact on project economics. This should be used as a tool to attract investment rather than be front-ended and as a result end up decreasing the IRR. Access to Inuit-owned lands for exploration has to be simpler and more predictable; it shouldn't take up to three years to be able to attain land. Hamlets also should progressively gain powers of taxation. We currently spend the equivalent of $800,000 that flows to the GN. However, very little of it appears to get back to the municipality. This would help build capacity and increase local accountability.

In summary, we've had great community support from the councils, the peoples, and the businesses; the communities are unified in their support of resource development. Nunavut has excellent mineral potential. Over the past year, 35 new joint ventures have been formed. We were able to consummate a deal with NTI on prospective claims. It took three years of negotiation, but that three years is also three years of lost exploration. Shipping costs have declined. There are more flights up north, but we need larger runways and aircraft.

With declining unemployment, the impact of the Meadowbank Mine has been significant. Income support to Baker Lake has declined 20% from 2008 to 2010. There is an increase in and focus on training. We have gained valuable experience in developing the Meadowbank Mine and hope to apply all that knowledge on the Meliadine project in Rankin Inlet. We've developed regional, Government of Nunavut, Government of Canada, and community, personal, and business relationships, and these will be valuable in our future development. Probably, most importantly, we have a much better understanding of the Inuit culture.

Mining is a very risky business. In a pro-mining region like the Abitibi, recently we closed our gold mine due to concerns over employee and public safety. Our company was recently questioned about our Arctic strategy and our Arctic exposure. We just closed a transaction in Sonora, Mexico, with acquisition costs of $250 million and a build of $150 million that should be in production in three years.

It has become abundantly clear that resource development is the way of the future in the north. The numbers tell the story. There has to be a better way. Industry can lead, but we can't foot the whole bill and carry the whole freight.

Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Scherkus.

We now go to Newmont Mining Corporation. I understand both of you have presentations.

We'll start with Chris Hanks, vice-president, environmental affairs, Hope Bay Mining Limited, Newmont Mining Corporation. Go ahead, please, sir.

3:40 p.m.

Chris Hanks Vice-President, Environmental Affairs, Hope Bay Mining Ltd., Newmont Mining Corporation

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, thank you for allowing us to speak this afternoon.

Newmont Mining Corporation is a global producer of gold. We have operations in the United States, Australia, Peru, Indonesia, Ghana, Canada, New Zealand, and Mexico, employing some 35,000 people around the globe.

Our wholly owned subsidiary in Canada, Hope Bay Mining, is exploring and considering development options for the Hope Bay greenstone belt in western Nunavut. It is one of the largest unexplored greenstone belts in North America. Hope Bay includes the Doris North project, which is currently in advanced exploration underground, and which we hope will come into production at some time in the near future.

Newmont also owns legacy properties in Canada that are in closure and reclamation. These include the Con Mine in Yellowknife and the Golden Giant Mine near Marathon, Ontario. Further, we have new exploration interests in western Canada, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories.

We'd like to talk today about issues that affect all of us who are working in the Arctic. Companies pursuing mineral exploration in the north face a number of challenges. They include regulatory uncertainty, substantial expectations by first nations and the Inuit, and a lack of key infrastructure, combined with natural factors of vast distances and harsh weather that make the costs of operation in the Canadian far north very expensive.

The challenge is to make development of more deposits feasible to feed the pipeline of projects in exploration and production to build a sustainable Canadian industrial base in the Arctic.

First, we need an efficient regulatory framework. In order to facilitate exploration and development in the Arctic, it is essential to have a regulatory framework that is protective of the environment, provides local benefits, and can happen in a time that allows companies to make timely economic decisions. It takes time to complete the regulatory processes, and this affects Nunavut's competitive investment market. Despite its extremely promising geology, the business challenges associated with working in Nunavut are great. Permitting timelines are of even greater critical impact on Arctic operations than they are south of 60°. The main reason for this is that long permitting lead times complicate the logistics planning necessary to build and operate mines. A lack of certainty in permitting decisions significantly increases the risk of the project and hinders investment, because a mistake of months in a permitting process can actually cost us years on the ground, by the time we design and build a mine and transport equipment to the Arctic.

There are some things that would help greatly. The northern major projects office modelled on the major projects office south of 60 degrees needs to be improved and resourced so that it can make the same advantages in the north that the MPO makes in the south. Major development projects need to be able to get through environmental assessment and permitting in a reasonable time. This has been an ongoing discussion between us and others. Our opinion is that 24 months is a reasonable period. At times now it goes closer to four years.

Reduced timelines that add to environmental assessments, such as long periods of review prior to ministerial signatures and long periods of approval on other auxiliary federal permits, could be shortened without risk to the environment. We believe you should be able to have your permitting packages together within six to eight months after you go through an environmental assessment. At Hope Bay, for instance, some of the permits following environmental assessment took another four years to obtain.

Part of this is that the northern boards of public government need to have adequate resources to do their job in a timely manner. It's expensive to keep good staff in the Arctic and to attract people to stay there, and it's also expensive to train the people from the north to participate in the processes. That is certainly a repairable problem. Resourcing those boards is something that should be fixed.

Projects located on Inuit or first nations lands face unique opportunities and challenges. Newmont supports the process under way to complete the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement through actions like passing the proposed Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act with appropriate timelines.

Canada should be proud of the success of the initial mine training initiatives for first nations and Inuit in the NWT and Yukon. These programs are sunsetting and should be re-examined. The demographics in the north show that the population of young aboriginal people is growing rapidly. Cooperation between government and the mining industry on training can provide an opportunity for these youth to have meaningful careers going forward in their lives. Private-public partnerships for training should be an important part of Canadian progress in the Arctic.

There are some unintended consequences to the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. One of them is that a position of double-bonding has occurred with the reclamation securities that are held over land and water between regional Inuit organizations and AANDC. That needs to be addressed and taken care of. It means that companies are posting double security for land and water in some instances. We fully support securing potential liabilities 100%, but they can't be doubled up. We're told that the solution to this may only be through legislation. If that is the case, we would encourage this committee to ask the government to proceed with legislation that would fix the issue.

3:45 p.m.

Tara Christie Senior Advisor, External and Government Affairs, Hope Bay Mining Ltd, Newmont Mining Corporation

Thank you, Chris.

Another important aspect of northern development, which I believe you'll hear from all of the industrial representatives, is infrastructure. Nunavut and the entire north is infrastructure challenged, from the aging and inefficient community power plants, to limited broadband, unpaved and too-short airstrips, and industrial sites where companies must expend private investment capital to develop the basic services that are available in other parts of the country.

In the long term the success and failure to develop strategic infrastructure in the Arctic of Canada may ultimately affect Canada's influence in the circumpolar region. Given the enormity of the task, Canada must utilize the benefits of public-private collaboration using the private developments that occur in the north as an opportunity for Canada to derive long-term and strategic infrastructure.

Going forward, we suggest the government develop a comprehensive northern infrastructure strategy to lay out a detailed long-term vision for infrastructure in the north, and anticipate the needs and priorities and projects that should be considered for partnering with Canada.

We recognize this will require considerable consultation with first nations, but we encourage you to develop an infrastructure strategy so that projects can be identified as they develop. We don't suggest that industry is looking for Canada to build its infrastructure, but the government should look at creative incentives through regulation, taxes, or royalties, to create an environment conducive for companies to leave a legacy of strategic infrastructure in the north.

One example that might be applicable is the P3 program for large-scale infrastructure projects, such as hydroelectric, sea ports, roads, and broadband. Increasing P3 funding could make many projects more feasible and build a positive resource legacy in the north. This could include longer paved airstrips that are capable of accommodating both strategic- and tactical-lift aircraft, and providing alternative and more sources of energy for the north, which may also help in the long term with greenhouse gas emissions.

In conclusion, we hope we've presented a few practical and high-priority items for Canada's northern development to help improve the mining investment climate in the north. On the regulatory front, we urge you to continue to improve the timelines in the assessment and regulatory process in the role of the northern projects office, and allocate resources to the co-management board's further increasing workloads.

On the Inuit and first nations front, we urge you to complete the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the other land claims, including the passage of the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act; support first nations and Inuit training initiatives that will help us find the labour force we'll need for all of our projects in the north; and resolve the double-bonding issue that Chris mentioned.

We urge you to think creatively to find ways to develop infrastructure that will benefit Canadians and northerners in the long term and develop a strategy for that. Canada can make the north a more competitive place to do business by working closely with the Inuit and northern first nations and their governments, the governments of the territories, and industry. In a more competitive environment a broader range of economic, environmental, and social opportunities is possible, and ultimately the result will be a higher standard of living for northerners.

Responsible economic growth based on environmental stewardship and healthy communities is essential for Canada to realize its Arctic vision.

Thank you for this opportunity.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Tara Christie, senior adviser of external and government affairs for Hope Bay Mining Ltd. Thanks for keeping your presentation on time.

From the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, Tom Hoefer, executive director, is going to make the presentation. Go ahead, please.

3:50 p.m.

Tom Hoefer Executive Director, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and standing committee members, for having invited us down to appear. I'm joined today by Larry Connell and Brent Murphy, who are two directors on our board.

We're a non-profit society representing industry and advocating for responsible development in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We do that out of two offices now, located traditionally in Yellowknife and this year a new office in Nunavut. It was sponsored as a pilot project with the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut, and our industry members to deal with the phenomenal growth opportunities.

We've provided a larger deck, and I'm going to paraphrase it, touching on a few slides. There are three key messages: first, mining is a key economic strength in the north; secondly, great opportunities lie before us; and third, we face challenges.

Eberhard Scherkus already touched a little bit on the importance to the economy in Nunavut with his project slowly approaching 15%, along with exploration in that region, of the GDP. In the NWT, mining is about 30% of the GDP. When you factor in other spinoffs in real estate and transportation, it's almost half of the whole economy. It's certainly a big industry.

Our industry is able to produce a lot of other spinoff benefits in infrastructure, for example. Over the years, it has been responsible for the only railway into the north. It has been responsible for ports at Nanisivik and Polaris, for the highway into Yellowknife, and ice roads—that sort of thing. It has also been very good at providing community benefits through things like helping infrastructure in communities, recreation facilities, scholarships and training, and lots of sponsorships and donations as well.

Our industry is a technological innovator, certainly on the engineering side. We're able to overcome challenges. The Diavik Diamond Mine received Canada's top engineering award a few years ago for having come up with a dike design that allows it to mine ore bodies on the bottom of the 60-kilometre-long lake. Without that, we wouldn't have the benefits of that operation.

We've also made engineering achievements with diesel technology, for example. We actually achieve twice the efficiency from our diesel power generation that communities do, because we collect the waste heat from those diesels. Just recently, we had one of our companies announce it is putting in wind generators at its site to help expand that ability and see what they can do for generating alternative energy.

We've also helped with ice-breaking cargo capability in the north. Nowadays, we've engineered ice roads so that we can take 10,000 trucks over a two-month winter road up to mine sites, which is a pretty phenomenal achievement.

We are not only a technological innovator; we are also a community innovator. Quite frankly, the mining industry in the last 15 years has been a real game changer in the north in both territories. Community benefits are that big game changer.

Mining is the largest employer of aboriginal people in Canada. It's also now the largest private sector employer of aboriginal people in the north.

The NWT diamond mines alone have contributed more than 17,000 person years of northern employment. Half of that is aboriginal employment. That has just been in the last 13 years. Accompanying that, there has been over $8.5 billion in northern business investment, and half of that has been in aboriginal businesses. These are businesses that just didn't exist a mere 13 years ago. Already, if you look at Nunavut's gold mine and get the statistics from it, maybe you'll see that it is already on that same path as to what's happening over there. It's a real game changer; it's a different industry from even 20 years ago.

We have a lot of opportunities before us. There is a nice map in your deck that shows potential projects in Nunavut and the NWT. These are all projects that are in the advanced stage, or else they are in the environmental assessment stage. We're hopeful they can become mines. Of course, it's all dependent on commodity market prices, timelines, and our hitting that window.

In Nunavut alone, there are at least 10 potential mining projects. They're identified on a nice chart in your package. If you look at the job opportunities that accompany those, you'll see they're huge. You'll see in the graph that it's really quite a tidal wave, if I can use that term, how many jobs those represent. They're in the thousands of jobs, which means lots of opportunity for training if we're going to maximize those opportunities in jobs as well.

On the business side, again, there are huge investments that those projects would bring, both in capital construction and in operating expenses. I dare say that also provides a lot of benefits to government, because the whole way through there are taxes collected.

If you look at the NWT, we have six mining projects in a similar situation. They are perhaps not quite as large as in Nunavut, but they are still important to us. If you combine those two, you have a total value in the north of about $14 billion in capital investment between those two territories. There are over 100,000 person years of employment and more than $40 billion in total expenditures over their lives.

We face challenges as well. There are five challenges we've outlined. One is geoscience; one is regulatory and policy environment; one is infrastructure; one is regulatory capacity; and the final one is community capacity.

Geoscience is our research and development. I know you've already heard speakers in the past on that, so I won't touch on it very much.

We're very happy that there has been an announcement recently to reinvest in exploration in both territories. That is the most undermapped region of the country.

On the regulatory and policy environment, I'd say Nunavut is quite supportive. They've benefited from a single land claim. They have a supportive GN, Government of Nunavut, and NTI mineral policies.

They have legislation, though, that needs to advance. You've heard some people touch on the NUPPAA bill. We're hoping that will come back this year. That will help to provide certainty for projects going through environmental assessment, and I think that's why Nunavut has $323 million in investment projected for this year.

On the NWT side, it needs help. Quite frankly, that's reflected in a drop in exploration investment down to $83 million this year. When the world is booming, our two neighbours in the Yukon and Nunavut are booming, and we're going the other way, it's a symptom that something is wrong.

One of the issues is access to land. It's becoming more difficult in parks and protected areas. Unsettled land claims are creating a huge challenge. The Akaitcho claim is a particularly rich area, and that's creating a lot of problems for us.

Aboriginal consultation is unclear, and I've mentioned land use planning and protected areas.

The legislation is complex. We have a very complex environment because of the multiple land claims up there. Our legislation under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act needs amending. The process has begun. It's been a long time coming, but we would urge that the pressure stay on to have it amended.

With regard to infrastructure opportunities, the Chamber of Mines doesn't have a particular strategy that we're pushing. We have a map in the deck. You'll see there are a lot of opportunities throughout both territories for ports and for roads. There are also opportunities for hydro power, airports, even a railway. We would seek your help, though, in finding creative solutions and creative funding solutions to that.

On the community capacity side, training capacity is the big issue. You've already heard that ASEP comes to an end on March 31. There is no successor program. We need to have a successor program. It was very, very successful, with the benefits on the diamond side in the Northwest Territories. We need to keep that momentum going.

We also need it on the business side. With the billions of dollars in investment, local companies could reap a lot of benefits, as they are now, but with that growth we need to also look at increasing their business capacity.

There is environmental capacity for communities as well. We want to have good solid environmental assessment processes, and communities need to be involved in that to make them sound.

Ottawa can help us face these challenges. Let me touch on five.

On the geoscience side, continue to grow that investment. It's important to an undermapped region of Canada.

On the regulatory and policy environment, advance the legislative changes to NUPPAA and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Settled land claims would be a tremendous benefit to us. And clarify the aboriginal consultation issue.

On infrastructure, as I said, find the creative solutions and partnership and we'll work with government on that. With regard to regulatory capacity, provide sufficient funding for public boards of government. We've signalled to the Minister of AANDC already about funding for boards like NIRB. They have to deal with that wave of opportunity, and we want them to have the capacity to run good processes.

Then, finally, on the community capacity side, we need support for new aboriginal training funding. We also want support for that business capacity building, and we want to ensure funding to participate in the regulatory processes.

That draws my report to a conclusion.

I've also brought with me a book to speak about innovation and infrastructure, and there are copies available for every one of the members. It's the 30th anniversary of the ice road, which has done so much and has actually made those diamond mines possible. So you might like to have a look at that.

Thank you very much.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoefer, for your presentation.

We go now to the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. I understand we have John Cheechoo, director, giving the presentation.

Go ahead with your presentation, please.

4 p.m.

John Cheechoo Director, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee, for inviting us here today.

ITK is a national organization. It represents some 55,000 Inuit in Canada. Its member organizations are the four regional Inuit organizations in Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut, and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Together these four regions form Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland in Canada.

We were invited to address the topic of resource development in the north. We have a couple of preliminary points to make on that topic.

The first is that we will speak to resource development in the Arctic, not the north itself but the Arctic. Discussions about the north can mean many things in Canada, but regrettably, and notwithstanding ITK efforts, often leave out the Inuit Arctic regions of northern Quebec and Nunatsiavut as well. I just point that out.

The second preliminary point is that resource development should conventionally be understood to include renewable as well as non-renewable resources. Traditional Inuit culture is a hunting culture, and Inuit look to such things as commercial fishing and sports hunting, as well as the maintenance of traditional wildlife activities, to help build up a growing and diversified economy.

Having said that, we suspect the committee's main interest at the moment is in relation to non-renewable resource development. For much of the history of Inuit within Confederation, the Arctic has been largely out of sight and out of mind. That has changed. There are many indications that the Arctic will have an increasingly large part of international resource development attention.

That prospect is seen in the hundreds of millions of dollars now being spent on mineral exploration in the Canadian Arctic. It is seen in such proposals as the Mary River iron ore project, complete with a railway and new port on Baffin Island. It is seen in the estimates of the United States Geological Survey that the Arctic is likely to hold a significant portion of the world's hydrocarbon reserves, both oil and gas. And it is seen in the speculation that advances in technology, receding ice conditions, and established and expanding trading patterns will promote much higher levels of commercial shipping in Arctic waters.

These kinds of changes are shaping the political and economic environment, but there are also other changes shaping that environment. Our land claims agreements with the crown and other power-sharing political achievements have opened a new chapter. These large regional modern treaties began with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975 and continued until the Labrador Inuit agreement in 2005. They form a continuous chain across the Canadian Arctic from the Alaskan border to the Labrador coast.

For Inuit, the modern treaty-making process is virtually complete, and common-law Inuit rights have now been codified, largely if not exhaustively, into the black-letter law of treaties. These treaties are all protected by section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. They have interpretive primacy over any conflicting federal, provincial, and territorial laws.

Together, these treaties make Inuit the largest non-crown land owners in Canada by a considerable distance. Much of this land has rich mineral potential. These property rights and benefits work alongside a restructured jurisdictional world. The treaties, directly and indirectly, have given rise to the creation of the Nunavut territory, with a strong Inuit majority of citizens. They also form the basis of new and enhanced regional and municipal government structures and powers in other Inuit regions outside of Nunavut. Some of these are still emerging.

The treaties have created new, more coherent regulatory machinery for the management of lands, waters, wildlife, and for the review of development project proposals. Appointments to joint resource management boards are made both by senior governments and by representative Inuit organizations.

The various proprietary and jurisdictional features of the treaties are complementary. They work together to deliver a decisively rebalanced distribution of power between Inuit and the crown, and, by extension, between the Inuit residents of Inuit Nunangat and Canadians living in southern Canada. They guarantee a strong, if not exclusive, role for Inuit in the assessment of development proposals.

These new agreements and arrangements do not give Inuit an unqualified veto on most forms or occasions of resource development. They do, however, create a kind of big-ticket tripwire with a very clear message attached. What is that message? That message is that proponents of major development projects in the Inuit homeland should actively seek Inuit partners, and in all cases they must turn their minds to how their proposals can deliver maximum benefits to Inuit communities and households as well as to their shareholders.

The old days of Inuit being passive observers to such fundamental decisions are gone. No approach to resource exploration development in the Arctic will be successful unless Inuit are full partners and draw direct and substantial benefits. This last message was forcefully made and upheld by the Nunavut Court of Justice in a successful application in the summer of 2010 by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association for an injunction to halt seismic mapping authorized by the Canadian government in Lancaster Sound.

Inuit have, with reluctance but determination, brought litigation in other circumstances when Inuit rights have been fundamentally ignored. Inuit put great stock in the value of candour and transparency in building a more secure and more just world. For that reason, Inuit leaders from around the Inuit circumpolar world released a declaration in May 2011 setting out fundamental Inuit principles and expectations with respect to Arctic development. That declaration, entitled “A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Resource Development Principles in Inuit Nunaat”, can be found at the ITK website and the Inuit circumpolar website. We have a copy here as well for people to view, in particular the declaration that was struck back in May. ITK recommends that all the members give the declaration a careful and close review.

We would like to close our presentation by suggesting that Parliament adopt a number of very clear priorities in relation to Arctic resource development.

Number one, construct policies and make decisions in the Arctic, both in the international and domestic spheres, on the basis of a strong, honourable, and mutually respectful and beneficial partnership with Inuit.

Number two, apply partnerships by implementing Inuit land claims agreements fairly and constructively. There is a serious problem in that regard at the moment.

Number three, move quickly to bring about a mix of federal laws, policies, and agreements that will ensure that Inuit and Arctic governments receive first priority and a generous share of public sector revenues generated by resource development projects. Among other things, this means early conclusion and implementation of devolution agreements for both the NWT and Nunavut.

Number four, respond expressly and positively to “A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Resource Development Principles in Inuit Nunaat” and its earlier companion declaration on Arctic sovereignty.

Number five, give full federal support to the new national Inuit education strategy, and invest, invest, and invest again in Inuit education and training. Improved levels of Inuit educational achievement and training are the biggest key to overcoming the glaring mix of social and economic problems that are plaguing, and in far too many cases crippling, Inuit communities and households.

Number six, and finally, temper enthusiasm for the economic benefits of resource development with climate change policies that are substantive and ambitious and that contribute to international confidence and solidarity. Special efforts must be made to address climate adaptation measures in the Arctic right now.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Cheechoo, for your presentation.

We'll start questioning and see how far we get.

Mr. Trost, for up to seven minutes.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate everyone's testimony here today. Just a warning: there's a great probability that we will be interrupted here fairly shortly.

Fairly quickly, one thing we've heard repeatedly over and over again is that regulatory timelines are a problem. We've heard that from other witnesses before. You laid it out today. Some were more aggressive in previous witnessing. We have your long-term solutions, but is there something we could do fairly quickly to make a major impact in the next 12 months or so? Some of the things—adding capacity, etc., and you bring up training, budgets—will take as long to do as some of the regulatory delays that have been noted here. Is there a one, two, three, something quick that this committee could recommend and say get implemented for next year that could start right away speeding up the regulatory process?

Does anyone have any quick suggestions?

We'll start with Mr. Hanks.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Go ahead, Mr. Hanks.

4:10 p.m.

Vice-President, Environmental Affairs, Hope Bay Mining Ltd., Newmont Mining Corporation

Chris Hanks

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Probably the fastest thing that could happen is.... When the original budgets were set out for organizations like the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Water Board, the assumption was that at any given time there would be one or two major projects going on and a host of smaller ones. If you look at the workloads of NIRB and the Nunavut Water Board, for instance, they now have three to four major projects going on, some of which, such as the Mary River project, are extremely large. So more funding to those boards of public government would be a quick solution.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

So a rapid increase in capacity for regulators, as far as trained regulators, say, coming from the south, who have experience....

Any other quick suggestions?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Mr. Murphy.

4:10 p.m.

Brent Murphy Director, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines

Thank you.

I think from the NWT side...a clarification of the roles and responsibility of Aboriginal Affairs versus the public boards, especially when it comes down to consultation: who's responsible for it?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

How quickly do you think that could be done? Do you think that could be done very quickly?

4:10 p.m.

Director, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines

Brent Murphy

I think it could be, if the roles and responsibilities were clarified, yes.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Okay. We need the will of the committee here. We need unanimous consent to continue. The bells have started.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that when we come back we extend our meeting until the bells ring for the votes at 6:15 p.m. I think we've got consent to go to 5:45 p.m. or 5:50 p.m. from members around the table.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Is there consent?

Mr. Gravelle.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

There is consent to extend the meeting, but could we carry on and at least get his questions finished? It's a 30-minute bell and we're only five minutes away.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Is there agreement?

Then we will do that. We'll go to the vote, come back, and extend the meeting so we can hear more from these witnesses.

Go ahead, Mr. Trost.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Thank you, Mr. Gravelle. I've never been supported by the NDP quite in that fashion before.

4:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Enjoy it.