Bill C-47 (Historical)

Northern Jobs and Growth Act

An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, which implements certain provisions of Articles 10 to 12 of the land claims agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada that was ratified, given effect and declared valid by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, which came into force on July 9, 1993.
Part 2 enacts the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act, which implements provisions of certain land claim agreements. In particular, that Act establishes the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board, whose purpose is to resolve matters in dispute relating to terms and conditions of access to lands and waters in the Northwest Territories and the compensation to be paid in respect of that access.

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

On five-year reviews, when the department came before us they said that five years wasn't long enough. If the department doesn't feel that five years is long enough, certainly we could look at seven years or whatever.

The point is that we've seen other pieces of legislation that have come before this committee. Specific claims in particular is one piece of legislation that comes to mind, and there was a review mandated in that piece of legislation. I look forward to the time when we can actually bring that back to the committee, because we've heard on the ground that there are a number of problems with that piece of legislation.

We've heard sufficient witness testimony on Bill C-47, with a number of proposed amendments from a number of different groups. It would seem reasonable if the government is unwilling to entertain any amendments to at least give us an opportunity to re-examine the legislation after it's been implemented to see if there are problems that have been caused because these amendments weren't put forward.

One would suspect that in part the reason the government won't support a five-year review—and I'm presuming they're going to vote against this amendment because they've voted against every other amendment—is that there is an issue of cost. But these reviews are important to allow Parliament to see whether the legislation they've put forward is actually effective, if it's working, or if we've missed the boat on anything. There are other mechanisms to do this, but this seems to be a way to regularize it.

We have a number of other commissions, and although it's not a review, they do report to Parliament regularly. The Cree-Naskapi Commission is one. They come before the committee when the report is tabled. We get a chance to hear how that's going and the kinds of problems they're having or the successes they're having.

It would seem a reasonable thing to do in such a comprehensive, sweeping piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the 60th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today we continue clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-47.

You'll see that we have folks from the department here again. We want to thank the officials for joining us. We appreciate their willingness to answer questions if some arise.

(On clause 2)

We are considering clause 2. Right now we'll go back to amendment NDP-23. If people are looking as to where.... We are falling into the itinerary. I don't know if there's somebody that might want to move that one.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-47 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 26, on page 44, the following:

94.1 The Board must establish a participant funding program to promote public participation in the review of projects that have been sent to the Board under subparagraph 94(1)(a)(iii) or (iv).

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

There are two aspects to this piece.

We're suggesting that the language be changed to say “project involves a matter of significant national”, and so on.

I would note that in the French version, the word “importante” is used, and an English equivalent of that would be “significant”.

With regard to the rationale for changing it, again I'm going to refer to the NTI submission. There are some concerns that without the significant national interest or important national interest, it could impact on the criteria. They say:

Under the NLCA, the Minister may not send a project proposal to a federal panel rather than NIRB on the basis of Canada’s national interest unless the interest in question is “important”. This qualifier is missing from ss. 94(1)(a)(i). The omission creates confusion as to whether the Bill’s criterion for this decision could be looser than the NLCA criterion. In keeping with the expectation that Parliament intends the Bill to be transparently consistent with the Agreement, the Bill should confine the criterion expressly to matters of “important” national interest.

I've used the word “significant” rather than “important” because of the translation issues.

Again, it's a matter of ensuring that Bill C-47 is consistent with the language in the NLCA. That's why I am proposing this amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My amendment NDP-19 is that Bill C-47, in clause 2, be amended by (a) by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 39 with the following:

(b) a review is not required if the Board determines that

(b) by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 55 with the following:

has issued if the responsible Minister determines that any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c)

(c) by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 79 with the following:

(b) the Board determines that the activities may proceed without such a review.

These aren't spelling issues. These amendments replace the vague word “opinion” with “determines”. The legal definition of “determines” means to come to a determination, which is defined as:

After consideration of the facts, a determination is generally set forth by a court of justice or other type of formal decision maker, such as the head of an Administrative Agency. Determination has been used synonymously with adjudication, award, decree, and judgment. A ruling is a judicial determination concerning matters, such as the admissibility of evidence or a judicial or an administrative interpretation of a statute or regulation.

This amendment was requested by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

What we have here is a situation whereby once again we're improving the language so the board has the responsibility not simply to outline its opinion, but to come to a judgment on these issues. That's a significant difference.

Having sat on these boards, I know an opinion could mean that around the table we said to forget about something.There's an opinion. It may not be adequate. Certainly in many cases it will not be adequate. What we have here is an opportunity to set the legislation forward in a good fashion that provides the right language for the type of decisions that are being made on this matter. Not to approve an amendment such as this simply.... I would ask the government witnesses why “opinion” was chosen rather than “determination”.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-47 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 14 on page 28 with the following:

exercise their powers and perform their duties and functions in conformity with it.

This hardens the requirement that all government bodies at all levels comply, operate, and conform to land use plans. That is simply, once again, an amendment that strengthens the use of the land use plan. If I could, I'll speak to that briefly.

Land use plans are sometimes not all that well received by government. That's my sense of it. If you look at the government of the Northwest Territories and its attitude toward the Dehcho interim land use plan, you will see that there's a great deal of anguish that these governments have over their loss of authority over land. That's what land use plans do. They give certainty to industry, to the people, about what is going to happen there, but it also takes away the discretion of government to make different choices. I have found over the time that I have worked on land use planning issues—probably for two decades—that governments are very reluctant to give up that kind of authority. We want to strengthen this language so that people who buy into and rely on this process of land use planning as a surety, whether it's industry, whether it's the public, get that, and they understand that the land use plan will give them surety.

That's why we're concerned about the language. We're concerned that the language gives that protection to people.

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

Mr. Chair, this is to do with the section that includes “existing rights and interests”. I'm going to quote from the NTI document because this is a bit of a complicated argument.

What we are arguing with this particular amendment is that the existing rights and interests be considered only in the context of the factors contained in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Part of the argument throughout this has been that it's important that there be consistency between the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and , the Nunavut piece of Bill C-47.

The argument is:

Article 11 of the NLCA contains a carefully negotiated balance of factors that must be considered in the development of a land use plan in Nunavut. It requires, for example, that plans provide for “development” as well as “conservation,” and that all types of “economic opportunities and needs” be considered. There is also specific direction that a land use plan take into account both “the natural resource base” and “existing patterns of natural resource use.” The addition of a requirement that the Planning Commission, governments and Inuit consider “existing rights and interests” when developing or accepting a land use plan undermines that careful balance.

They go on to say:

...this provision is overkill. Existing rights and interests are already given special status elsewhere in the Bill, over and above their treatment in the NLCA. The Bill’s “grandfathering” rules prevent an approved land use plan from prohibiting a land use that is already being carried out (subsection 69(3)). The inappropriateness of giving “existing rights and interests” separate status in the plan approval process is especially obvious in the case of plan acceptance by the designated Inuit organization. Inuit organizations should not be required to privilege non-NLCA considerations in their decisions.

Mr. Chair, I think it's an important note just in terms of consistency between the NLCA, the protections that are already outlined in the NLCA, and making sure that Bill C-47 is consistent with those protections that are already outlined. I'm hoping that we will have the support of all members on this particular amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-47, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 23 the following:

48.1 When the carrying out of a project is allowed by the Commission, any new or revised land use plans applicable to the project do not apply to the licences, permits or other authorizations required to be obtained by the proponent.

Mr. Chair, this was actually a recommendation brought forward by the mining industry to ensure some certainty over what they are doing. In the understanding that the development of resources is a cooperative effort between the land owner—government—and the resource owner—government—and industry, this was something that would give some certainty to the industry that this would occur in the fashion that would be useful to them, that they wouldn't be undercut by changes to land use planning processes that may impact upon the business they are doing.

It also suggests that if there are changes, there is some protection given to industry as well, that they can negotiate on those changes by the fact that they do have the ability to hold back. In the spirit that you understand, we're not opposed to development, and we're not opposed to people coming in and doing work on the land, and their interests have to be protected as well.

What we have here is an amendment that I'm sure all of us around the table can agree on in principle. Perhaps the Conservative members may not want to support it because they have a reluctance, it seems, to think that anything within this bill needs improvement.

I would leave it at that. I'm hoping we will get the support for this amendment as with all the other amendments we're putting forward in good faith.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that clause 2 of Bill C-47 be amended (a) by replacing line 30 on page 21 with the following:

45. The Commission must, in exercising its....

and (b) by replacing line 6 on page 28 with the following:

67. The Commission must, in conducting its....

Can I speak to this amendment now?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I move that clause 2 of Bill C-47 be amended by adding after line 44 on page 20 the following:

39.1 For greater certainty the Commission and the Board continue to be funded by an appropriation by Parliament.

[Paula Isaak]

The Nunavut planning and project assessment act to a large extent implements the planning and assessment process that is already in place in Nunavut. Nevertheless, some incremental costs are expected, and the department recognizes that appropriate funding levels will need to be negotiated once Bill C-47 receives royal assent.

In terms of how this is done, funding for institutions of public government in Nunavut is determined on a tripartite basis, negotiated among Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the Government of Nunavut, through the implementation contract. The Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission are required to provide annual work plans and budgets in order to access the funding allocated to them under the implementation contract.

[Paula Isaak, Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

My name is Paula Isaak, and I am the director general of the natural resources and environment branch of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. With me today are members of the team: Janice Traynor, Todd Keesey, and our legal counsel, Tom Isaac.

As you know, Bill C-47, the northern jobs and growth act includes part 1, the Nunavut planning and project assessment act, which responds to our government's obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993, and part 2, the Northwest Territories surface rights board act, which fulfills our obligations under the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement in the Northwest Territories. Both of these proposed acts were developed in consultation with the relevant aboriginal groups of the two territories in accordance with our legal obligation under the land claim agreements.

Over the past few weeks the committee has heard testimony and received submissions from a number of witnesses on Bill C-47. Given the nature and scope of the comments and recommendations received by the committee, it's conceivable that some may give rise to some questions, or may require additional context to be fully understood.

If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I will be pleased to respond and clarify any outstanding questions.

If I may, I would like first to reiterate a couple of rather important points with respect to the development of both parts of Bill C-47 and the consultation efforts in each case.

With respect to the Nunavut planning and project assessment act, our commitment to close consultation resulted in a unique co-development approach where the drafting of the bill was guided by a tripartite Nunavut legislative working group. Canada, the Government of Nunavut, and the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, or NTI, were members of the working group. They were assisted in an advisory capacity by the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board.

Since 2002 the working group, guided by the provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and aided by the counsel of its advisers, resolved questions of policy and language, and crafted the bill which is before the committee today. This unique partnership confirmed our commitment to consult closely with Inuit, but our consultative efforts extended beyond the working group once a legislative proposal was completed.

The proposal was circulated widely across Nunavut and in neighbouring jurisdictions. Departmental officials travelled to no fewer than 10 communities in Nunavut to talk to people about the proposal. Industry was also engaged over the course of the last three years, and their insights and suggestions resulted in several improvements to the bill.

With respect to part 2 of the bill, the Northwest Territories surface rights board act fulfills the Government of Canada's obligations under the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement. Both agreements refer specifically to the need for a surface rights board.

The establishment of the board is also consistent with the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the Tlicho Agreement, the other two comprehensive land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories.

The Tlicho Agreement allows for the establishment of a surface rights board. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement specifies that any interim measures related to access across Inuvialuit lands to reach adjacent lands will be replaced when a law of general application such as this bill is enacted.

Obviously, our duty to consult fully on such a legislative undertaking was paramount, and our consultation efforts spanned the entire two-year period the bill was in development.

To fulfill our obligations, three successive draft legislative proposals were distributed which were reviewed by 13 aboriginal groups and governments in the Northwest Territories and adjacent jurisdictions, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and industry associations, at which time written comments were solicited.

These reviews were followed by consultation sessions primarily in the regional centres of Yellowknife and Inuvik to explain the changes made from one draft of the initiative to the next, and to discuss potential improvements to the legislative proposal, including any accommodation measures.

The written comments received and views shared during consultation sessions from aboriginal groups and governments were reviewed and taken into consideration in the preparation of subsequent drafts of the proposed legislation. All parties who provided feedback received written responses to their comments indicating what accommodation measures had been included in the draft proposal, or the reasons that accommodation measures were not or could not be included.

Funding assistance was also made available to all aboriginal groups and governments throughout the consultation process and could be used for the preparation of written representations, attending consultation sessions, and for legal counsel or consultants to assist in reviewing the more technical aspects of the legislative proposals.

In summary, we have met the crown's obligations under settled land claims agreements and in common law to engage in meaningful dialogue with aboriginal organizations, governments, and other stakeholders who participate, have an interest in, or may be impacted by the regulatory regime in Canada's north.

In addition, I would reiterate that this bill is intended to implement land claims. In our view, and in the view of the Department of Justice, both parts of Bill C-47 are consistent with those respective agreements, subject of course to the four amendments that Canada and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated have agreed to make to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement prior to the coming into force of the Nunavut planning and project assessment act.

At this point, we thank you for the opportunity to appear today to assist the committee in its review of Bill C-47. My colleagues and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that members may have about the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we're going to call this meeting to order. This is the 59th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

We are pleased to have the departmental officials with us this morning for the first questions. Obviously, they will have an opening statement, and then we'll have some questions as they relate to Bill C-47.

Colleagues, I know there are a number of questions to start us out. Then we will proceed to clause-by-clause study. Our officials will be staying here with us through this process. We appreciate that, and thank them for being here to assist us in this endeavour of doing the clause-by-clause study.

I'll turn it over to our officials for their opening statement. Then we'll proceed with questions and move on from there.

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you very much.

In addition to our brief, we've provided a PowerPoint presentation that illustrates a bit more what's happening in the mining industry globally, and Canada's role within that global industry. I would encourage you to take a look at that at your leisure. It also highlights the potential in Nunavut in the coming years, a potential that both of my colleagues have already referred to.

I'm CEO of the Mining Association of Canada. I'm joined by my colleague Rick Meyers, who's been with us for several years. Prior to that he spent several years with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development as director of northern affairs. He's spent a very good part of his life helping Canada develop the diamond mining industry in the Northwest Territories.

MAC represents the producing side of the business. In that sense we're different from the PDAC. We have some 35 or 36 members engaged in exploration, mining, smelting, and refining across the country, across a range of commodities.

In 2011, the year for which we have the most recent statistics, the mining industry contributed some $35.6 billion to the GDP and employed some 320,000 workers, paying some $9 billion in taxes and royalties to provincial and federal governments. The sector also accounted for almost 23% of exports, exporting a record $102 billion worth of metals, non-metals, and coal.

I highlight the word “record”. We've been breaking records lately, and again, that speaks to what's happening in the commodities market globally. Canadian mineral production reached a record high in 2011 of $50.3 billion, a 21% increase over the previous year. We also broke new records in mineral exploration, a lot of which is going into the northern territories.

According to our research, we've estimated that there's as much as $140 billion in new investment that could come forward in the next five to 10 years across Canada, $8 billion of which is targeted for Nunavut. A good chunk of that $140 billion is already actually being spent. That number focuses on projects that are either in development or in later stages of environmental review. We are certainly hopeful that this new legislation will help increase these opportunities and turn these opportunities into reality.

To ensure that the mining industry's contribution to our economy remains robust, a competitive and predictable domestic investment and regulatory environment is crucial. To this end, we encourage this committee and the government to continue to support Canada's investment climate through regulatory improvement, as demonstrated by this legislation.

We welcome the tabling of Bill C-47. We are particularly optimistic about the inclusion of the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, which resulted--and I want to emphasize this--from a broad and thoughtful approach to stakeholder engagement, a level of engagement that in my experience on northern legislation was unprecedented with our industry. We've been involved since the bill's early stages of development and participated in several rounds of a multi-stakeholder process to provide industry input into the legislation. Overall, we are pleased with the advancements the legislation presents; however, we do believe there are some opportunities for improvement.

We have four suggested improvements, but they're also contained in my colleagues submissions from the PDAC. I'll try to run over these fairly briefly, in the interests of time.

The first is with respect to timelines. I would note that the timeline for comprehensive studies is to a maximum of two years; south of 60, the timeline for comprehensive studies is a year or less. There is a difference there. We recognize the land claims process in the north imposes obligations that may make it harder to achieve the more ambitious goals of the south; nevertheless, we flag for you that there is a pretty big difference between the two.

On classes of works and activities exempt from screening, jurisdictions typically do not require screening and/or environmental assessment of certain classes of low-impact activities. Schedule 3 of this bill is intended to confirm such classes of projects not required to undergo screening or environmental assessment in Nunavut; however, the schedule has not yet been completed, creating uncertainty as to the details of these classes. In that regard, we recommend that schedule 3 be completed in advance of the bill coming into force.

My colleague has also touched on the issue of minor variances. I would emphasize as well that we suggest that the Nunavut Planning Commission be provided with the authority to grant minor variances at its own discretion without a full public review process, but with the requirement to publish the commission's reasons for the decision on the public registry.

My colleague from the PDAC also mentioned offences under land use plans. Creating quasi-criminal offences for certain non-compliance activities under land use plans is unusual and unnecessary. In B.C., land use planning does not include criminal offences. For the most part across Canada, I'm not aware of examples of where that exists. We as well believe that the offences aspect should be removed from the bill.

The tabling of Bill C-47 is timely, given the announcement that Canada will be leading the Arctic Council for the next two years. Through its position as chair of the multinational council, Canada can help demonstrate the positive economic contributions that natural resource projects can bring to the circumpolar region and the importance of having effective legislation in place that allows for responsible development to take place for the benefit of northern peoples.

This legislation, I would emphasize, comes at a critical time for Nunavut, with its promising mineral potential and with opportunities for economic development never before seen in the territory's history.

The ideal outcome for this bill would be to have a new regulatory regime that helps enhance the region's economic development while ensuring mining projects go through a robust assessment and permitting process. We believe this is possible, particularly with the proposed changes we've recommended.

For the foreseeable future, mining will be Nunavut's most important private sector economic activity. Mine developments bring critical economic and social benefits: employment, business and skills development, and revenues and contributions towards enhancing the education and social development programs that contribute in many ways to improving the quality of life for Nunavummiut. Such advancements bring stability, enhanced capacity, and confidence in the territory's abilities to sustain its people's future.

The positive economic contributions that mining projects bring to the north are clearly demonstrated by the startup of the Meadowbank gold mine, which is currently Nunavut's only operating mine. Since it began production in 2010, Nunavut's GDP has increased by 12%. The mine employs more than 500 people, 38% of whom are Inuit. Moreover, through a historic agreement with the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the operator, Agnico-Eagle, has established new business opportunities and provided funding for education and skills development for people of the north. The approach taken by Agnico-Eagle in Nunavut is the way our industry operates today, and is what the people of Nunavut can expect from other projects in the future.

Nunavut is the least explored region in Canada, but is blessed with a very high mineral potential. There are six major projects moving through Nunavut's environmental assessment, including another one by Agnico-Eagle. With several more on the horizon, as was mentioned by my colleague from the Nunavut Planning Commission, it's estimated that before the end of the decade, development could double in the territory.

It will also help to ensure the Inuit of Nunavut will be able to take advantage of new employment, training, and business opportunities before them. The people are its future, and the advancement of their economic and social advantages will determine Nunavut's ability to compete on the would stage. The completion of NUPPAA as an enabling legislation is an essential element for the achievement of that goal. We strongly urge the committee to move forward with this legislation expeditiously.

Thank you very much.

[Nadim Kara, Senior Program Director, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, I'd like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to speak to you all today in relation to Bill C-47.

I am Nadim Kara. I am the senior program director with PDAC and I am here to state our support for Bill C-47.

To do that, my colleagues from the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines and I have prepared a cover letter stating our support for the bill, and a more detailed written brief specific to NUPPAA.

We have also prepared this presentation with some additional background on our industry. I'll try to do it justice in about 10 minutes, and the detail is there for your reading later on.

Let me set the stage with a pie chart that demonstrates how mining is the largest private sector contributor in the north. In this chart you can see that mining alone is almost one-third of the Northwest Territories' gross domestic product, and when you add additional benefits, it's closer to one-half the economy. In Nunavut the single mine is already contributing close to 15% of that economy.

The chart on page 4 demonstrates the value of mineral production in the three territories. It is quickly apparent that in the Northwest Territories that value is not only significant but that it vastly outpaces that of both Nunavut and Yukon. Almost all of this is from the diamond mines.

In Nunavut the industry is just resurfacing after its previous mines closed, and this value you see is from just one gold mine, so there is significant opportunity in Nunavut to surpass the mineral production value of the Northwest Territories. The situation is similar in the Yukon.

On slide 5 you can see how our industry translates the value of mineral production into equally significant benefits in terms of jobs and business development. I think it's important to highlight that more than half the northern jobs created were generated for aboriginal people and nearly half the over $8 billion in spending was for aboriginal companies.

On slide 6 you can see a list of just some of the new aboriginal companies that have been generated since diamond mining began over 15 years ago.

Slide 7 also highlights the contribution in taxes. I should note that while I'm showing examples from the NWT, you should understand that the mine in Nunavut makes similar contributions.

Slide 8 takes you through the taxes paid in addition to corporate taxes and royalties, including fuel and property taxes, and has some information on resource royalty that the federal government has shared with aboriginal groups. Since 2001 this has totalled almost $34 million to the three land claim groups that have settled.

Slide 9 points out that mines don't last forever, so this chart shows the lives of the four mines in the NWT and the single mine in Nunavut. Since mines are not discovered every day, we need to be preparing now for their eventual closure through more exploration, which creates the pipeline through which new projects emerge.

Slide 10 gives you a sense of some of the advance projects that are currently in the pipeline. Most are in the pre-feasibility stage or in the environmental approvals process.

Slide 11 takes you through some of the estimated lifespans for these projects, which hold tremendous opportunity to sustain the industry for many years. However, they're not slam dunks; they're not guaranteed, and we need to do our part to create a supportive environment to increase their odds of success.

Slide 12 gives you a sense of the factors that influence the pipeline, which is exploration, which is what my association focuses on. This chart shows exploration investment in the three northern territories. You'll note that although Yukon and Nunavut have seen significant investment and mirror what has been happening around the world, in the NWT, despite similar geological potential and similar logistical challenges, exploration has been languishing. The fact is that due to unsettled land claims and an overly complex regulatory environment—perhaps “clunky”, as Paul has said—we've created uncertainty that is driving away investment.

This is why your work to pass good legislation is so important.

I'll take another moment to talk about exploration, using slide 13, where you see a graph that plots exploration in the NWT and Nunavut as a percentage of all money spent on mineral exploration in Canada. You'll see that Nunavut is doing quite well at holding its own, but the continued decline in the Northwest Territories demonstrates what can happen when there isn't a good investment climate and when money leaves.

That brings us to slide 14, which is our work today. This is why we support Bill C-47 and why we support the enactment of the NWT Surface Rights Board Act as it is.

That is, I think, the first statement. We think it provides a court of last resort to help deal with land use conflicts, it fulfills the last piece of legislation called for under land claims, and it readies the Northwest Territories legislative framework for devolution. We want Canada to hand over a complete and modern package of legislation when they devolve mining to the Northwest Territories government. That is all we'll say today on the NWT Surface Rights Board Act.

We also support the enactment of NUPPAA; however, we propose amendments in six places. I'll walk you through those now.

Some of you have seen this presentation already. My colleague Tom Hoefer presented to some of you in the north, so I apologize to those of you who have seen it already.

Slide 15 takes you through a bit of how we look at NUPPAA. The simple sustainable development triangle highlights the balance, which I think Paul also referred to, in trying to achieve environmental, social, and economic objectives. We want to be in the middle, and we think our amendments will take the act into the middle.

Let me describe those amendments now.

The first amendment is with respect to timelines, as seen on slide 16. We support a 24-month process as an efficient process. It's good not only for process certainty, but also for project logistics and cost. Identified here are a number of open-ended timelines in various clauses that we believe need to be tightened up.

On the next page, at slide 17, the second amendment is with respect to schedule 3, which is incomplete. Under the land use plan, some classes of work can be exempted from screening and can proceed directly to the regulatory phase. We recommend that this schedule be completed before NUPPAA is proclaimed.

On page 18, the third amendment talks about minor variances. Although minor variances provide a flexible and adaptive approach to projects, which is good, the process for dealing with these minor variances is quite complex. We recommend that it be simplified to allow the commission to grant or deny minor variances without the overly complex requirements that are discussed in our brief.

The next amendment, on page 19, is about offences. We think it's unnecessary to create offences under the land use plan. It was not anticipated or contemplated in the land claims agreement itself. It's important to highlight here that we're not against offences; we just think they belong under the permits section issued by the regulatory side of NUPPAA. We recommend the deletion of the proposed subsection that deals with this aspect.

On page 20, the fifth amendment relates to grandfathering. I know that I'm walking you through this quickly, so thank you for bearing with me.

This amendment is pretty important to us. Millions to billions of dollars in mining investments are made on the basis of regulatory certainty. Once the investment is made, miners are captive. We can't pick up and move our mines to find a more favourable jurisdiction if someone moves the goalposts. NUPPAA currently has very complex and ambiguous wording with respect to grandfathering. We recommend that the draft be amended to more clearly provide grandfathering of projects, as described here and in our brief.

The final amendment, on page 21, provides for a comprehensive review of the act after five years to make refinements that might be necessary. This is required under similar legislation in Yukon. We believe that had this requirement been in place for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, we might have resolved some of the challenges that we face today in the NWT under that legislation.

To conclude at page 22, we think mining is the north's economic advantage. The Conference Board of Canada report that recently was published highlights that. It's creating significant benefits for communities. Its environmental stewardship record has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. We support the NWT Surface Rights Board Act as is, and we support NUPPAA but recommend the six amendments I've mentioned today.

I'll stop there and leave you on the last slide with some photos that remind you of why mining is so important. At the end of the day, it's about people generating both the economic opportunities and the chance to improve quality of life for northerners and all Canadians.

Thank you.