Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
As Thomas said in introducing me earlier, I am Stephanie Autut, executive director for the Nunavut Impact Review Board. Before I talk about specific issues and recommendations, I want to follow up on Chairman Kabloona's comments about Nunavut.
It is important to remember that while there are similarities between the regulatory regimes in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut, there are also important differences. In particular, NIRB and the water board were formed and operate pursuant to a single land claims agreement. Currently, in the Northwest Territories there are both settled and unsettled land claims and multiple regional boards carrying out impact assessment and regulating the use of water. The boards agree that without due care and attention, there is a risk that the existing regulatory processes in Nunavut may create barriers to economic development.
We are in a unique position to assess potential bottlenecks and implement solutions. As set out in our written brief, we have identified four barriers that we hope you will consider in your deliberations: the lack of a land-use plan or plans for a significant part of Nunavut; delays in board member appointments; funding constraints; and local, territorial, and federal government capacity.
In the absence of land-use plans for each region of Nunavut, there is currently no single entry point or “one window” into Nunavut's regulatory system. This can result in delays, lack of consistency, and uncertainty about the regulatory process for applicants and industry. Currently, where land-use plans are not in place, coordination efforts of the boards and the impact assessment process must fill that gap.
Implementing land-use plans for Nunavut will increase regulatory certainty and consistency by clearly defining where development is appropriate and under what conditions at the start of the process. These plans enable industry and other land users to strategically plan their investment in Nunavut and put forward project proposals that respect Inuit values.
We appreciate that land-use planning is a priority. However, there is a risk that the single Nunavut-wide land-use plan that is being proposed will not provide the level of detail necessary for decisions to be made at a local and regional level.
If that is the case, it will effectively push planning decisions and the related community consultation back into the impact assessment process. This risk can be minimized by ensuring full public consultation and ongoing coordination and cooperation between the boards and the Nunavut Planning Commission from the earliest stages of the planning process.
Accordingly, the boards recommend that the process to develop land-use plans be made available, with early notice to all affected parties and the general public of opportunities for input that reflect the appropriate levels of consultation. We recommend that a consultation record be maintained and priority be given to the completion of regional or sub-plans, with sufficient detail to guide development in areas facing the greatest development pressure, and that prioritization should include firm timelines for completion and the allocation of the resources necessary to complete the task.
Moving from land-use planning to impact assessment to date, article 12 of the NLCA has provided NIRB with a very workable framework for carrying out impact assessment. That may explain why it has taken some time to develop implementing legislation for article 12. Over the past four years, NIRB has actively participated in the development of a new act respecting land-use planning and the impact assessment of project proposals in Nunavut.
The draft Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, given first reading in the House yesterday—NUPPAA, for short—includes timelines for decisions, increased consultation with industry and others, new language requirements, and new enforcement and reporting provisions.
The draft legislation will create the one-window approach that is currently lacking; however, this does not eliminate the need for the Nunavut institutions to continue to work together. Rather, it is increasingly important in preparation for the law coming into force.
Additional resources will be required for the boards to participate in this implementation planning and in equipping the organizations to meet new requirements and timelines. It will be essential for the Nunavut Planning Commission, as the single window into the Nunavut regulatory regime, to access the expertise held within these organizations in order to fully understand the impact assessment and regulatory processes that occur.
I also want to discuss one of the most significant ongoing challenges facing the boards, which are delays in the appointment of board members. This delay can result in a loss of quorum. The boards rely on board members to make the decisions required to fulfill their respective mandates.
The members of the board are appointed by the minister on nomination by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Government of Nunavut, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. While there has recently been some improvement in appointments, the boards remain very concerned that there will be a disruption in service if nominations and/or appointments are not made in a timely manner. Furthermore, there is a significant training period required for new members, and there is limited funding and resources to provide training.
Accordingly, the boards recommend that by legislation or amendment to the NLCA, the following be implemented: that transitional provisions be made to restore the staggering of terms of appointments for members, consistent with the initial appointments as set out in section 12.2.7 of the NLCA, with future appointments to be made only to fill the balance of the term of the predecessor; that each chairman be given the authority, in defined circumstances, to extend the term of a member for expired appointments until new appointments are made; and that except in exceptional circumstances, all new appointments be made to each board once annually and resources be provided for training of new board members.
Dionne will cover our last two points.