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.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just briefly getting back to Mary River, our experience is that even with the reduction, when you reduce the mine output by so much...they may have to look for the highest grades of ore to start with. That may affect longer-term planning for that resource if you high-grade early on.
I don't know if that actually fits with that situation, but I'll leave that with you.
My question is more about cumulative impact assessment. You've talked about $500 million worth of exploration going on there. You've talked about a number of opportunities for mine development. Cumulative impact assessment is really an experience in the Northwest Territories with the diamond industry, where we've added three or four diamond mines in one area. We've seen a cumulative impact on caribou. There is no question about it; it changes....
That's not readily apparent on the first environmental assessment. Do you have a process in place to track cumulative impact assessment?
In dealing with cumulative impact assessment, will you be able to do the analysis of that within the timeframes that are set out within this bill? You have a 24-month period to determine if a project is compatible with the environment, because of course that is your job and the job of this act of Parliament.
What is your process in Nunavut for cumulative impact assessment?
10:40 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
For QIA we have no process. Mary River is our first mine, and we're learning as we're going along.
One of the things that we are negotiating under our IBA is to have community committees monitor the project and the impacts that will likely happen.
Cumulative impacts....
10:40 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Both agencies that are the subject of this legislation do have a role in assessing cumulative impacts. The planning commission, which is kind of a “before the fact” discussion, if you like, on what might be acceptable, what might not be acceptable, how many.... There are provisions in that to kind of monitor development or activity as time goes on, and then possibly change the land use plan, or even having provisions within the land use plan, to be able to deal with that.
The NIRB, the Impact Review Board, would also consider cumulative impacts as part of their assessment of that particular project. It's a public process.
I don't think there's a formal set of guidelines in terms of what would be considered unacceptable cumulative impacts, but there's a process to examine what these impacts might be and whether or not they might be acceptable through that process.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
In the Canadian environmental assessment law you are able to judge future development with present development. That's not the case under NWT law.
What is the case with Nunavut law?
10:40 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
There's no formal law, that I'm aware of anyway, that deals with cumulative impacts, but there's a process that deals with cumulative impacts.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Are you able to induce development, or are you simply...? There is quite a difference between CEAA law, the Canadian environmental assessment law, and what has been passed for the Northwest Territories, which is much downgraded actually from the national law.
I'm curious if that's the same thing that's carried out in Nunavut and if there has been any discussion within Nunavut about the appropriateness of that legislation.
10:40 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
There has been lots of discussion in terms of cumulative impacts. I guess we feel our impact review process is on par with or better than the Canadian environmental assessment process. We had an amendment to our land claim that actually recognizes that the Nunavut Impact Review Board and their process would replace the CEAA process.
It's kind of a moving target as we move forward, and cumulative impact...even though we're young in the development history of the territory, it is a consideration and will play into how the Nunavut land use plan is developed. It's very much in its infancy now, as well as the impact review process of the Impact Review Board.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much.
It seems we're out of questioners. If anybody does have any follow-up questions, we probably have a few minutes to entertain them.
Mrs. Hughes.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
You made a comment, Ms. Eegeesiak, that the amendments wouldn't be a deal breaker.
The only thing I would ask of you is if the amendments aren't made, how will that hinder your ability to be able to move forward in certain areas? What are the challenges this would bring?
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
If Mr. MacIsaac answers the question, that's fine. It's just that it was a comment you had made, so I was wondering what the challenges would be.
10:45 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Misunderstandings. I guess that is one answer.
10:45 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
It's basically a matter of interpretation of the land use agreement. A lot of goodwill has gone into the creation of this act. A lot of goodwill has gone into everybody working together, and it'll be difficult if misunderstandings or different interpretations of particular clauses or activities hinder that. I guess that would be our fundamental....
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Does that mean that that could jeopardize some of the work that's been done or some of the projects?
That's my last question. Thanks.
10:45 a.m.
Director, Land Administration, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
I don't think it would jeopardize projects in the large sense, in terms of a project being cancelled or whatever, but it might create argument, if you like, within some of these processes, for example, the NIRB process or the land use planning process, or whatever. A lot of extra time could be spent arguing about a particular method or way of doing things, or whatever, when maybe that's time that could have been saved if they were dealt with in the beginning, if you know what I mean.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We want to thank Ms. Eegeesiak, as well as Mr. MacIsaac, for being here and for bringing comprehensive testimony to this.
Did you have a question, Ms. Eegeesiak?
10:45 a.m.
President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Yes, just with regard to some of the questions about funding or a proponent paying for things or resources.
That's one of the arguments that we have had in issues with Baffinland. Nunavut does not have baseline data required for a lot of the work that's going on. I'd like to use the example of where Fisheries and Oceans used 1985 beluga data from the Northwest Territories because we don't have beluga data in Nunavut. That is one of the things that we have come across with regard to baseline data that we need in Nunavut. And there are some questions around basic infrastructure—do proponents have to build a dock—or stuff like that that the federal government should be responsible for, is responsible for.
That's one of the things that we have talked about: the need for basic infrastructure that the federal government should be investing in so that more investment can come in.
Thank you very much.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, I just want to make you aware that as we proceed towards clause-by-clause in the coming week, if you want those proposed amendments to be included in the clause-by-clause documents that will be distributed, we'll need them early this coming week. After the weekend would be very helpful. Of course, it doesn't prohibit people from moving amendments during clause-by-clause, but it is a lot easier, just for housekeeping, if we can have folks see those before.
Ms. Bennett.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Are we going to be able to have a look at the government amendments so that we're not duplicating?
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm putting this out to encourage both the government as well as opposition members. Maybe you can discuss that, but I think that would be helpful, obviously, in charting the course forward.
Again, thanks so much to our witnesses. We'll now adjourn this meeting.
Colleagues, you'll remember—
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Carolyn, thank you for the question.
We are in the process of looking at a couple of submissions for proposed amendments. The department hasn't worked through all of them. We were waiting for the last few witnesses, particularly with the new part, to take a look at those in their aggregate. We're close, but it will probably be the end of the week or early next week. We'll certainly pitch those to you as quickly as possible.
