Thank you, Jen.
What we're trying to convey here today is that parallel impact assessment systems, both of which involve federal representatives, are a recipe for confusion, delay, and expense. They violate the “one project, one review” principle that has been accepted by Canada.
More fundamentally, though, the imposition of a second system inevitably undermines the screening and review process that Canada and Inuvialuit promised to uphold at the beginning. This is because when you have duplicate systems and they are working their way through the process, there is a potential for differing outcomes, differing recommendations, or differing timelines. If a recommendation is coming from a process based on land claims, and alternatively from an agency-based process, then the ultimate decision-maker has to decide which one to accept, if both systems are undertaken.
Likewise, our feeling is that a proposed substitution option, under proposed section 31 of the proposed bill, which leaves substitution to the discretion of the minister on a case-by-case basis, introduces uncertainty and likely delays for the proponent, for the stakeholders, and for the regulators, as the substituted process may take time to commence.
Looking at the issue holistically, having competing processes is not conducive to effective review or responsible development. However, we see that proposed section 4 of the proposed bill may offer a solution for us, and I will allow, of course, my fellow Inuit organization colleague to speak to their views and their specific situation with respect to the provisions of the bill. But for Inuvialuit, proposed section 4 may hold a clue. However, in its current form, this clause, for the ease of the group, refers to the non-application of the act, which is something that both IRC and the game council have been advocating for some time.
Currently the provision states, “This Act does not apply in respect of physical activities to be carried out wholly within lands described in Schedule 2.”
What we would recommend is some additional text that specifically identifies the non-application of the act to jurisdictions as defined in the proposed bill, where a designated project is subject to a process established by a land claims agreement for assessing impacts of that project.
In a nutshell, that's what Inuvialuit have been advocating for. It's relatively simple.
We will leave it there and open it up for questions now or at the end.