Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2012

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I have one further question on it as well.

You have these timeframes established now for doing assessments. When you have significant modifications, what's that going to do to your timeframe? Are you going to see that the clock ratchets back on the particular aspects of the timeframe during the process you're engaged in if there are significant modifications?

I can see this as being a real stumbling block for both the commission and the proponent if we're tied to a timeframe and there's a quarrel or a disagreement over significant modifications.

[Richard Spaulding]

That's a question you may want to pursue with the federal officials appearing, but in terms of NTI's basic understanding of the scheme, yes, the clock does start again. If a step has to go back to a previous step that's been taken, then the body that took it initially has the same amount of time when it's looking at the change that it had when it looked at the project the first time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn now to Mr. Clarke, for five minutes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today, and I acknowledge the students, too. It's great to see some aboriginal intuition here and to get their opinions as well. It's very beneficial.

We heard from the Government of Nunavut that they support the bill in its current form. They consider it probably offers improvements to the land use planning and impact assessment process.

Would you agree with this view?

[John Merritt]

Is the question, does this bill improve the land use process?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Yes.

[John Merritt]

NTI believes it does improve the land use process, yes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

In what ways?

[John Merritt]

If you look at articles 11 and 12 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, you get limited text. Land claims agreements, by definition, don't get into the detail that is required in order to implement a complex land use planning environmental assessment scheme. The bill, of course, is many times that length.

The addition of the detail creates a more certain operating environment, a more full rule book so that everybody who has to play within that regulatory regime has a better understanding of what's expected.

We don't object to the additional detail. We think it's necessary; in fact, that's what the treaty contemplated. The treaty contemplated there would be subsequent legislative activity to backfill with more detail. We don't think this is excessive detail. We think it's a helpful amount.

Insofar as the GN, the Government of Nunavut, says this additional detail would make the land use planning process more effective, then NTI agrees with that. We wouldn't have participated in that working group for as long as we did if we hadn't believed in the same opportunity.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

How does the clear and comprehensive planning review process as is provided by the bill assist Inuit as well as Nunavut as a whole by fostering economic development while still protecting the environment?

[Udloriak Hanson]

As John just said, it does provide a clear framework and it does explain a lot of detail that's not in the land claims that would provide for timeframes and for different regulatory bodies to consider projects based on their mandates.

That's not to say they haven't been as effective as they should have been, but this does provide for industry, for Inuit, and for the government to be able to have it clearly outlined in the legislation as to how it is that these projects are reviewed.

Do you want to add something?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

How does the bill provide for Inuit participation in the development of the lands and resources of Nunavut?

[Udloriak Hanson]

There are a couple of parts to that question. The land claims agreement did provide for Inuit to participate in these decision-making processes right from the get-go, so that part of it doesn't change, necessarily. On the second part of it, in terms of devolution and the Government of Nunavut, the legislation would actually help—with the amendments, of course—to have that process defined in more detail, therefore providing for a very thorough review on the environment side and on the side of the impact on the Inuit and native community as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

We'll now turn to Mr. Genest-Jourdain, for five minutes.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Good afternoon, everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

As you're finding the headphones, you'll find the translation which is usually on channel 2—the English—but you may have to switch depending on the different settings.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Is everything working for our witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It's channel 1. Pardon me, my apologies; sometimes our hardware doesn't connect properly.

We'll just mention this to those in the audience as well. You'll see an earpiece next to your seat. If you're interested in listening to the translation, there should be translation on channel 1, but you may have to switch to find the actual channel.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

My question is about the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board, the composition of which is established in Bill C-47.

Could you tell me your view of the actual involvement of Aboriginal groups and individuals in terms of appointments and the actual position provided for communities on the board?

[Udloriak Hanson]

Thank you for your question. I'll have one of my colleagues finish answering.

If I understand the question correctly, as I mentioned in the last answer, the land claims agreement had already outlined the makeup of the institutions of public government, how many Inuit would be sitting at the table. Therefore I'm not sure if the legislation needed to provide or does provide for any more clarity on that front.

Does somebody want to add to that?

[Richard Spaulding]

Thank you.

Yes, the surface rights legislation for Nunavut has already been enacted in a previous piece of legislation called the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The second part of this bill doesn't concern Nunavut; it's NWT and Yukon. Our submissions are limited to the Nunavut component of the bill in part 1.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to share my time with Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

To get on with looking more at the variety of amendments you've proposed, you talk about the need for the authority structure in approving a number of the pieces that are taking place here. Could you explain in a little more depth why you've made that an amendment, with the role of the Governor in Council versus the minister?

[Richard Spaulding]

Sure. I'll try to summarize what I said earlier.

If the general rule of the agreement is that where government has a power relating to a term of a land use plan, government must use that power in accordance with the land use plan. That's after the plan has been approved, and it's subject to powers to grant minor variances and exemptions and so on, but that's the general rule.

There are terms of land use plans that the agreement provides for where the only power to implement them rests with cabinet, yet the bill defines the bodies that are responsible to implement those kinds of terms in a way that excludes cabinet. The matters I'm referring to here are mainly the establishment of parks or marine conservation areas, and also a list of conservation areas, which include protected marine areas under the Canada Wildlife Act, marine protected areas under the Oceans Act, and a number of other instances. The only body that can implement the plan there is excluded from the definition of bodies having responsibility under the bill.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What kind of structure is in place for reviewing an amendment of the land use plans once they're in place?