In a nutshell, what I'd like to convey with the context is that the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was negotiated in response to the very thing that part 1 of Bill C-69 seeks to address. While it was negotiated some 34 years ago, it remains relevant to the same forces at work today.
The IFA or Inuvialuit Final Agreement is structured on principles of sustainability. The stated objectives of the IFA are to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values in a changing northern society, to enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in a northern and national economy and society, and to protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment, and biological productivity. In other words, the very purposes outlined in proposed paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b) in part 1 of Bill C-69 are those that were incorporated in the final agreement in 1984.
To achieve these goals, and recognizing the development to which Inuvialuit needed to respond at the time, the IFA established, in section 11, an impact assessment system that is triggered at a low threshold. As Jen will explain now, it has worked.