Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Jan. 29th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You're pretty well out of time, since you ask.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

But there are so many more.... All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

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

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

Good morning, everyone.

Ms. Copland, I have read your report. One part of it, in particular, has drawn my attention because it resonates with the reality of my community, which is located on the 52nd parallel.

I will quote in French—so we are talking about a translation—a passage from your brief regarding past land development. I would like you to put all of this into context and provide us with some concrete examples. The following is stated in your brief:

Many who have experienced resource-based development in their community know that, eventually, it leaves, and they will not trade what is necessary to sustain and protect their ability to live off their land and waters for economic development.

Could you provide us with some examples of such development in the past?

[Elizabeth Copland]

if I understood your question, you mean if a project is proposed in an area and the people do not agree. Is that what you're asking?

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

I was referring to land development that had taken place in the past, when that development was resource-based and led to conflict.

Could you give us some examples of that past resource-based development and explain to us why Inuit no longer support that type of development in 2013?

[Elizabeth Copland]

It's pretty much a split a lot of times. There are people who are in favour of development and others who are not in favour.

Ryan, perhaps you can comment.

[Ryan Barry]

Thank you.

Yes, Elizabeth is correct. Perhaps as a concrete example, in the past there has been a clear ban on uranium mining in Nunavut. More recently that ban was overturned. In the same communities where there was almost total opposition based on, I think, more recent experience with having a gold mine in their backyard, and seeing both the opportunities and the impacts that come along with that, it's led to a greater understanding of what comes with development sometimes.

That leads to again a further split, as Elizabeth said, with some factions strongly supporting increased development and some factions more adamantly not wanting to see it happen.

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

Thank you.

I will share my floor time with Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I want to go back to the significant modification issue.

In my experience with environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories, the two major mines that we approved both had modifications after the environmental assessment.

In the case of Diavik, they increased their capital project by putting in a dike and changing the dynamics. With Ekati, they took out one of the pipes they were going to develop, and that took about 10 years out of their mine life.

The significant modifications that occur after an environmental assessment in our case were very important because they changed the dynamics of what was happening with the mine in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, in terms of major economic value to the north in jobs and business opportunities, which are very time sensitive.

Going back to what you're proposing here, with the bill as it stands, the company is responsible to establish the significance of the alteration. Is that correct?

If the company says they're altering the project and indicate the things that are significant, will you only be able to look at those things within the process? Isn't that why NTI is asking for the ability to look at the significance of alterations to the project, so that they can interpret the impact on the economy?

If, say, with the Mary River project you were reducing the output from 18 million tonnes down to three million tonnes, that would suggest to me that there might be some issues around high-grading ore. Would that be something that would be identified by the company as being of significance, or would it generally be held to the agencies within Nunavut to identify that significance?

That's just a hypothetical question, but I'm trying to establish why you have such a strong interest in the significance of alteration.

[Ryan Barry]

I think it's a fair question.

For projects that have gone through an environmental review and then, as you suggest, are subject to such changing things as the expected production or the placement of major project components, right now, as the land claim stands, because the board for a project that it has reviewed produces a project certificate that lays out the terms and conditions by which that project can be developed, when anything significant changes—whether they want to change a component of the project or whether something is just not working, where it works out differently on the ground from what was expected—there is the ability for the board, the government, Nunavut Tunngavik, a member of the public, or the proponent to essentially make application that the terms and conditions aren't working and need to be revisited through a formal assessment process.

We're supportive of that being kept the case, where when conditions change, there needs to be that ability to revisit the terms of approval and to determine if further assessment is required.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Within this act that's being proposed right now, that will change from what you have today.

[Catherine Emrick]

I think it's a question of making sure that the regulatory bodies are aware that modifications are happening and then an opportunity to input or make that significant determination....

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That's right. The power still resides within the board, after this act is passed, to determine whether or not something is significant.

[Ryan Barry]

It's important to recognize that by putting notice on the proponent to report on these changes and any significant modifications, it doesn't change the process for reconsidering. What it does do is it gives another means, with the new enforcement powers that will be under the act, to hold a proponent to account if they're not in fact reporting these changes and if they have to be brought up through other means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We will now turn to Mr. Rickford for the last questions.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just have a couple of questions, Elizabeth, going back to what we heard earlier in this process, in December of last year.

Representatives of the Government of Nunavut told this committee that Bill C-47 would contribute to devolution discussions by providing what I believe they said was “an effective regulatory system”, and that the process of drafting Bill C-47 demonstrated a collaborative effort between levels of government and organizations, which is also a necessary component of devolution.

In your view, Elizabeth, does or would Bill C-47 support northern governance and devolution, broadly speaking? Do you have a comment on that either way?

[Elizabeth Copland]

Probably, broadly speaking, it would support.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Do you feel that this part that affects Nunavut then extends or grants greater control over the decision-making process politically, environmentally, and economically for the people in the territory?

[Elizabeth Copland]

I think it would give more teeth, if you will, to our decisions—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay—

[Elizabeth Copland]

How do I say it...? In what terms and conditions we give to the company, it would have more legal...or more grounds or more teeth in our decisions.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Did anybody else want to chime in on that?

Ryan, did you?

[Ryan Barry]

I think Elizabeth is right. With the enforcement provisions, it certainly brings a new level of teeth or accountability and adherence to our terms and conditions.

With regard to devolution and recognizing that the act itself is somewhat removed from that type of process, I think the biggest thing to keep in mind is that currently in Nunavut approximately 80% of the land is administered by the crown. Devolution would make the control of those lands go to, obviously, the territory of Nunavut—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

It's a significant shift in governance, first of all—