Evidence of meeting #57 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 lot.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
10:25 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
But those are recommendations.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much. I, too, look forward one day to visiting you.
My questions will focus on intervener costs. I have a background as an environmental lawyer, and I have represented and worked with a lot of indigenous people and other Canadians intervening in these projects, and particularly with the energy review projects in Alberta. I have to admit that I am pretty stunned looking at the legislation, in that I can't find a single provision where either any board or the minister is required to give consideration to public concerns. That actually is required under Alberta law.
I understand some of the interventions before the committee have raised concerns with the lack of specific attention to intervener interventions and costs. I'm just wondering what your opinion on that is.
Second, under Alberta law, which would be on par with Nunavut, they actually require that the board publicly issue their criteria for when they are issuing intervener costs. People can participate—anyone—but only specified interveners can receive costs. In their wisdom back and forth, they have often said it's only those directly affected, and that means you have to own the land, which has caused problems in northern Alberta because essentially nobody lives there, but they are first nations traditional lands. So it's a fight over costs.
I'm particularly interested in whether you have taken a close look at clauses 93, 99, 102, 103, and 190. I don't see any requirement in any of the factors that says “can consider other things”.
Do you think it would be useful to require all of those authorities to actually specifically consider public concerns as raised during the hearing?
Third, in Alberta, it's the proponent who has to pay those costs as opposed to the government.
I would just like your comments on the Alberta approach, if you think it would be useful.
10:30 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Getting views from interested parties and interveners, we believe as Inuit, is very important because it helps to bring out questions or issues that we may not have thought of. Inuit are always open to different people asking questions on anything, especially things that have an impact on the socio-economic community.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Do you think there would be any value in having a provision similar to Alberta's, where it is actually the project proponent that the board can require pay those intervener costs?
10:30 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
One of the most important things in these processes—and they are public processes, so maybe they are a little bit different from what happens in Alberta, where I think intervener funding...and I think there are other Canadian laws too, for example, CEAA, and I believe the laws that govern the National Energy Board and maybe the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission do have provisions for intervener funding. I believe some of them are paid for by proponents, or there might be some kind of a cost-recovery mechanism within those processes.
These institutions of public government do run public processes, so anybody can intervene within them, and they actually make a point of going into the communities and soliciting information from that particular community, and from other interveners across the country, for that matter.
An important consideration, though, is these famous 10 volumes of information. There's a lot of scientific information in there, and a lot of jargon and language and everything else that might make it difficult, not just for people within the community, but for any person who doesn't really have that kind of background, to understand what's being asked of them. So maybe provisions that simplify or ask for simplified submissions or whatever...anything that allows people to understand. In a lot of cases, really it means that you have to hire your own consultant, from a community's perspective, to translate a lot of these documents, to put it into....
So, yes, there is a need.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much.
We'll go now to Mr. Boughen for five minutes.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Let me add my voice in welcoming you here this morning and thanking you for taking time out of your busy day to share some of your expertise with us.
I have a number of questions I'd like to ask you folks this morning.
Do you feel that the Inuit were closely consulted, as is required under the agreement, during the development of this bill?
10:30 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Yes. Through NTI we participated in the development of the bill. Now we're proposing improvements to it.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Good. Okay.
Do you feel that the Nunavut planning and project assessment extends or grants greater control over decision-making processes for the people of Nunavut?
10:30 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Inuit have to participate in the approval process, so yes.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Good.
Would you agree that none of the stakeholders involved in the development of the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act got everything they wanted in the bill? Were there a few things left out?
10:30 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
My presentation includes the fact that we are suggesting amendments so that it's more aligned with the new land claims agreement, as required.
Do you want to add anything, Bernie?
10:30 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
It was a long process developing this bill, from what I understand, and I saw part of it. A lot of collaboration and consensus were required in order to do it, and there was a lot of compromise on the part of a lot of different agencies to come up with what you see before you today.
Maybe it's a good sign that nobody got everything they wanted, but for the most part, everybody was happy with the end result.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
The process was well accepted—the consultation. Everyone had a chance to say what they thought?
10:35 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
There are always possibilities for more consultation. I remember some of the consultations were whirlwind trips through the north, going to communities and talking about it, and there was a lot of discussion, as you said, with various subject-matter experts at the discussion table when the bill was being drafted. Yes, there was a lot of consultation; there could have been more.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
How do you think this bill will assist Inuit, as well as Nunavut as a whole, by fostering economic development?
10:35 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
It will help with the land use plan and resource development out there; that is to do some legwork before they come up, I guess. And it does provide more certainty.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Oh, two minutes left.
Could you share with us your thoughts on how this process may be revamped or changed, or is it good the way it is? Sometimes we change for the sake of change and then we wake up and say, “That wasn't a very good move.” What are your thoughts on that?
10:35 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
I always say build on what works in the communities. Just because the government changes doesn't mean all the programs or all the processes have to change. Build on what has worked in the past and build on community capacity, too.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Yes, the process certainly was good. It was good that all the major players, the signatories, actually, to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement were part of the creation of this and the building of this. That's almost a fundamental tenet of the land claim agreement and Inuit culture, where consensus and working together are very important.
It's a very small territory; capacity is low. If you look at the population of the territory, it's basically half a Blue Jay's game.... So you have to work together to make things happen. There are a little over 30,000 people in that territory right now. It's the fourth busiest place in all the 13 jurisdictions in Canada in terms of exploration activity and mineral development and various other types of activity. So yes, you do have to work together.
If you take the fundamental principle of this process as working together in consensus, then yes, it's good. Obviously it can always improve, but moving forward, people still have to work that way. It's the only way it's going to work up there.
