Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Dionne Filiatrault]

We get core funding from the federal government to deal with our core operations and day to day for our annual budget.

We are a project-driven board, and because we are a project-driven board, we don't necessarily know. Based on the level of the economy, when we did an assessment three years ago, we forecast that there wouldn't have been enough weeks this year alone to do the projects that we had initially forecast.

Those major, in most cases, mine development projects that we were forecasting to initially occur in 2010-11 are now moved a little further back on the horizon.

When we get those projects, we actually have to submit a separate funding request to the federal government to cover those expenses. When we do that with the body that we deal with within the federal government, there is such a high degree of staff changeover that we're answering the same questions today that we answered 14 years ago. I've been with the board for 14 years and Stephanie has been with the board for a number of years.

When we're talking about streamlining, we need to get standardized processes in place so that our capacity that's already somewhat strained is not continually going to be strained dealing with issues that should have been resolved years ago. There are opportunities in place for the boards, and we've implemented one of those by creating a detailed coordinated process. We talked about the Nunavut Impact Review Board's process happening and then the water board process. We're now looking at what activities we can do concurrently. By doing that, there's going to be streamlining of funding, but what it means is that now the water board is going to be asking for funding, generally a year and a half to two years before they normally would for a particular project.

That being the case, our view is that in the long term it will shorten the length of time that the project will be in the regulatory process, and overall potentially shorten the costs associated with that project. But it means that we need to streamline to get that funding sooner.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Okay. I think that's actually very helpful.

At your fourth bullet, you say, “Assessing future long-term cost advantages of new initiatives to streamline processes and provide a mechanism for early funding when long-term advantages support the change”. Could you, in your own words, describe that in more detail so that we get a full comprehension of what you mean?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

Let's assume that there is a mine development project or a project proposal that gets submitted to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for their environmental assessment review. That process can take, I'll say, just as an example, two years. Once they've made their decision and the minister has acknowledged the decision, the water board process starts. That process right now can take up to a year, so you're looking at a project that's three years in length.

We're saying now that if we can do some of the activities concurrently and bring the water board people into the project through the environmental assessment phase and at least be involved in the discussion on water and waste issues earlier on, as opposed to doing things back to back, we can shorten our process probably by six months and begin to clarify some of the water issues earlier so that you're not caught at the last gate trying to figure out what those issues are.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

That's once again very helpful.

Is the NUPPA legislation not predicated on actually making that collaboration occur more readily?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just a short response, please. We're out of time.

[Dionne Filiatrault]

The Nunavut land claim provides that the boards are required to cooperate to eliminate duplication and streamline the process. From my understanding, having seen previous bills from NUPPAA, they are considering the same conditions. I haven't seen NUPPAA to confirm that it is in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan; and thank you to Vice-Chair Russell for filling in for a few minutes.

Now we'll go to Ms. Crowder for five minutes.

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

This may be on the same point, but I want to clarify it. In paragraph 3.0 of your presentation, under “Nunavut planning and project assessment legislation and water regulations”, further down the page you talk about overall timelines for impact assessment and water licensing:

While the draft legislation establishes timelines for decision making for NIRB, the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Minister, these timelines have little legal effect and may, if the full time is taken, increase the overall time required to move a project through the regulatory system.

Is what you were just talking about an effort to deal with that, or is this something separate?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

I would suggest that it's a separate issue.

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

Can you expand on that?

[Dionne Filiatrault]

From our perspective, in our legislation--to use an example--there are actually timelines on the federal government. In some cases they meet those timelines, and in others they do not.

In the overall consultation process, again, we rely heavily on the federal departments as key experts and witnesses in the area of environment, transportation, health, and things like that. So their ability to provide comments within a specified timeframe, or not, can later affect the overall length of a process.

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

So there aren't mechanisms, I assume, to deal with lack of meeting those timeframes.

[Dionne Filiatrault]

I'd probably defer that to Stephanie to be more specific on what NUPPAA is doing as far as timelines go.

[Stephanie Autut]

Again, my understanding on the last bill that I reviewed was that there were no consequences if you missed a timeline.

If I could just expand, for operating purposes, our board has established its own internal timelines to give an idea to proponents who wanted to know the bigger picture from start to finish. The bill that's before the group now has expanded even further on some of those timelines, given more time than what the board has actually suggested would be warranted.

That was a concern of ours, in the sense that if we're trying to make the process more efficient and more streamlined, building more time into what we are recommending may not be the best way to approach that.

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

I agree with Mr. Duncan. It's a bit complicated, because we have this piece of legislation and we haven't had time to look at it, and we're sort of trying to deal with two things here.

I'm sure we'll be having further conversations about this once we've all had an opportunity to look at the legislation.

I have just a quick question back on resources and the whole negotiation process around getting the resources you need. Is there any dispute resolution mechanism in place?

[Stephanie Autut]

There is not that I'm aware of.

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

Yes, I'd have to go back to look at the land claims agreements.

[Stephanie Autut]

Violet has pointed out that there is the Nunavut Arbitration Board.

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

But both parties have to agree, isn't that right?

[Stephanie Autut]

Yes.

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

So if both parties don't agree, then it's not really an effective dispute resolution process.

[Stephanie Autut]

That's right.

[Dionne Filiatrault]

I've only been in my position with the board for the last three years, but it's my understanding that there was an external negotiator who at some point was hired to try to bring some resolution. But in the three years I've been the executive director there's been no movement in that regard.

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

Do I still have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have one minute.