Evidence of meeting #56 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Would you know anyone who might have that answer?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
I presume the Government of Canada was leading the working groups, so it would be the Government of Canada that could respond to that.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Does the Nunavut Impact Review Board feel that all the comments and concerns it raised during the development of this bill were adequately considered?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
I'll take a stab at answering again.
We always felt our comments were given consideration. However, given that our board members would be the ones implementing it, I think our understanding of how things might work on the ground was often a little different from that of the people actually drafting the legislation.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Okay.
After years of consultation with both the working group and the public, I remember a comment by the minister about it being a “complete legislative package that basically everybody could sign onto” but that “nobody, including industry, got everything they wanted in this legislation”.
Is that correct?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
I've heard the same quote. That's correct.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Do you feel the same way about that?
9:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
It's a little beyond my day-to-day job to comment on the acceptability of the legislative process itself. I can say that given our experience of implementing environmental assessment in Nunavut, within our role in the process we hope to provide a very clear understanding of what is likely to work and what might make the job more challenging or what might not lead to the efficiencies that we want to be put in place.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
From a legal standpoint, how do the legal representatives feel?
9:15 a.m.
Catherine Emrick Legal Counsel, Nunavut Impact Review Board
I would suggest that the recommendations that have come forward have been about improving the work that's been done to date. The mining industry's recommendation for a five-year review certainly suggests that improvements are an ongoing part of the legislative process. We have tried to focus the Impact Review Board's comments on the key areas that we think would help improve the effectiveness and efficiency. We believe those goals are shared among all the parties that were at the table.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
How were the issues raised both by working group members and by external participants incorporated into the final draft of the bill?
9:15 a.m.
Legal Counsel, Nunavut Impact Review Board
Just to be clear, none of us at the table were actually participants in the working group. My understanding was that the feedback was provided by working group members, and then the Government of Canada had a direct relationship with the legislative drafters.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
January 29th, 2013 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thank you very much.
I was quite taken by your comment that the legislation would remove the discretion on process and therefore would require increased resources. Can you explain that a bit?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
Yes. Thank you. I'm glad you picked up on that.
It is important to recognize that the set of instructions the board has been working with since 1996 has been very sparse but has given enough detail and direction such that we have been able to carry out the board's mandated functions very successfully, using some level of discretion. When we say “discretion”, we're looking at recognizing that we have only two levels of assessment in Nunavut: a screening level and a review level. There's nothing like a comprehensive study or the levels you might find in other jurisdictions.
What this has required is that when we're carrying out a standardized process, sometimes we have to tailor the timelines to that particular project. If there are 18 communities, as there were for Mary River, you can expect that it's going to take a little longer to visit those communities and get their feedback. If it's a much smaller project, the timelines might be quicker. You might not need a draft environmental impact statement. You might be able to carry forward to a full statement right away without compromising any of the integrity of the process.
What we're seeing in the bill are new requirements for things like translating and consulting on the development of guidelines that lead to other steps in the process. While we support and understand the rationale for those, what we're recognizing is that although they deliver increased certainty about what the process will look like in each case, sometimes those steps currently aren't required, or they aren't required to the degree that they will be. Additional resources may be required to carry out that type of process.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I think you said that when this bill would be enacted you would need to have the people, the systems, and the funding in place. Can you explain what that would look like?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
Again, I think that's a great question.
For us, being in Nunavut and having our funding levels set, the board's initial funding levels were set before the board was established. That was in 1992 through the original implementation contract, through the land claims agreement. At that time, there were certain assumptions made about staffing levels, the number of board meetings, and things like that, and here we are, quite a bit later. That was done for a first 10-year contract, and there was no renewed contract after that. This has been done on a year-to-year basis with Aboriginal Affairs since that time.
What it has led to is that we've had to develop things like a public registry system online, but we've only been able to afford the very lowest technology. It's FTP software, which is not very friendly publicly. The bill in front of you will require us to have an online presence. It brings in new translation requirements. It makes us have to adhere to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. For a small organization such as ours that doesn't have those systems in place for all aspects, as the federal government might, that means we are expecting a much larger burden on an already very constrained budget.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Your submission, in the second last paragraph, refers to ensuring that the money's in place, or that the resources necessary be in place prior to the coming into force of the statute. Do you have any assurance of that in terms of whether it will be in the upcoming budget? Where are you going to get the money?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
Now you know what keeps us awake at night, I think.
Realistically, our funding is provided by the Government of Canada through implementation of the land claims agreement. That's not about to change with this bill.
The Government of Canada, along with Nunavut Tunngavik and the Government of Nunavut, through a Nunavut implementation panel, is currently requesting a new 10-year budget submission from the board, so they are at least asking how much money do we feel we need for the next 10-year period. That's a first, the fact that they've asked us that question. We're preparing a very detailed submission for them and, through reviewing the legislation and thinking about the consequences, hope to make it very clear where we feel our funding level needs to be and what that funding would be required for.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Finally, in your commentary on the NTI proposed amendments, you liked two of them and you didn't like two of them.
How are we supposed to decide?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
I think it's important to consider our experience in implementing the current directions under the land claims agreement. You'll notice in our submission that we've been very careful to highlight the fact that although we understand the spirit of the Nunavut Tunngavik submission, and we believe we understand their intention, we think the way things would work on the ground might be a little different from what they would anticipate.
From our perspective, we tried to be very pragmatic and to lay out what we thought were some of the complications that could arise really just through a misunderstanding of what certain terms in the process, such as “scoping”, really mean, and when we do those and what they would entail.
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board
I see nodding with that, so....
9:25 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
