Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I call the meeting to order. This is the 58th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we continue to pursue our look at Bill C-47. We have three groups of witnesses. We're going to work in the opposite direction from what the orders of the day indicate. We're going to begin with the Nunavut Planning Commission. We're pleased to have them. Then they'll be followed by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and then we'll have the Mining Association of Canada.

We'll turn it over to our witnesses. We usually--and it won't be new to most of you--begin with opening presentations from each one of you. We'll give you about 10 minutes. We'll let all the presentations be completed, and then we'll begin with the rounds of questioning.

The rounds of questioning will be undertaken around the table. When questions are directed individually to you, you'll answer, and if it's open to all of you, you'll be welcome to answer as well.

We'll begin with the Nunavut Planning Commission. We have Paul Quassa, as well as Sharon....

[Sharon Ehaloak, Executive Director, Nunavut Planning Commission]

That's okay. It's Ehaloak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It's Ehaloak. Pardon me.

I believe we have Adrian Boyd at the end. We don't have a name tag for you, but we'll turn it over to you, and then we'll hear the other presentations and then have questions for you.

[Paul Quassa, Chair, Nunavut Planning Commission]

Qujannamiik. Uvunga Paul Quassa.

[Speaker speaks in Inuktitut]

I'm Paul Quassa, chairman of the Nunavut Planning Commission, and I'm here today with Sharon Ehaloak, our executive director, and Adrian Boyd, the director of policy.

On behalf of the Nunavut Planning Commission, I'd like to thank the committee for the privilege of speaking directly with you today. The Nunavut Planning Commission is an institution of public government established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The commission is primarily responsible for the implementation of article 11, land use planning under NLCA.

As a public agency, we conduct our operations in a fashion similar to that of any land use planning department you may have encountered at the municipal level. Our nationally certified, registered, professional land use planning staff ensure that best practices and emerging trends of the profession guide our land use planning activities. These planning activities are designed to implement our unique legal obligations set out under the NLCA.

The Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, “the act”, adds the long-awaited clarity required by the commission to fulfill its role as the gatekeeper of Nunavut's regulatory process. Under the act, the commission will be the single entry point into the regulatory system for Nunavut. This of course is where land use planning was always meant to be.

This additional duty is a monumental task. However, it eliminates 20 years of confusion and debate over where the regulatory process starts in Nunavut. Therefore, when the act comes into force, the regulatory process in Nunavut will be instantly streamlined. It is important to note that the NLCA requires that the objective of the land use planning process be the development of planning policies, priorities, and objectives regarding the conservation, development, management, and use of land in the Nunavut settlement area and the preparation of use plans to guide and direct resource use and development in the Nunavut settlement area. The commission is responsible for the implementation of its approved land use plans.

The NLCA also requires that in the development of planning policies, priorities, and objectives, factors such as the following be taken into account: economic opportunities and needs; community infrastructural requirements, including housing, health, education, social services, and corridors; cultural factors and priorities; environmental protection and management needs, including wildlife conservation, protection, and management; and energy requirements, sources, and availability.

Land use plans developed under the NLCA shall reflect the priorities and values of the residents, must give great weight to the views and wishes of all Nunavut municipalities, and must take into account input from appropriate federal and territorial government agencies, designated Inuit organizations, communities, and the general public.

All of these interests must be taken into account for an area that includes 1.9 million square kilometres of land with vast economic potential, sensitive and unique Arctic wildlife and habitat, pristine freshwater reserves, and thousands of kilometres of Canada's marine coastline.

According to the Conference Board of Canada's Centre for the North, mining production in Canada's northern regions could nearly double by 2020. Challenges for Canada's north include a “clunky regulatory process”. Discussion needs to be focused on environmental stewardship and respect for aboriginal rights in order for projects to be developed sustainably.

With the implementation of the act and the development of the Nunavut land use plan, many of these concerns can be addressed. Land use planning, when appropriately funded, is capable of addressing concerns raised by the Conference Board of Canada, Inuit, Nunavut municipalities, environmental agencies, industry, and all Canadians. Through land use plans, we are able to bring certainty to investors by addressing the age-old debate of conservation versus development. As you can see from the NLCA obligations I have already mentioned, land use planning is expected to tackle competing interests in land use head-on.

The act creates significant new legal obligations for the commission. These obligations require organizational changes, which will have financial, human resources, and technological implications that need to be addressed to support the commission's transition.

The requirements under the act will change and add to the current operational task of the organization. Being established as a single entry point into the regulatory system will create a major shift to the conformity determination obligations established under the NLCA.

In essence, the commission becomes the conductor of the regulatory process. The Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, and government agencies and regulators form the orchestra; as conductor, the commission directs the flow of projects into the environmental and regulatory review process.

In addition, the establishment of legal timelines, an online multilingual public registry, and other technical and language services will seriously increase demands and workloads for the commission. At present the commission is constrained by its existing human and financial resources and is not currently able to take steps required to prepare for implementation of the act.

It is important for me to emphasize that the commission embraces the new opportunities that expand our public service role. We believe the new obligations will bring clarity to the regulatory process and promote investment, create awareness, and maintain a high level of environmental stewardship in Nunavut. We are excited to see the act advancing and are committed to its success.

That said, this organization has been critically underfunded for nearly a decade. Industry and Inuit have told us that the land use planning process takes too long, and we agree. However, without additional resources, the commission is helpless to respond.

Over the past 90 days the commission has consulted with nearly half of the communities in Nunavut on the draft Nunavut land use plan. During our consultation on the draft Nunavut land use plan, Inuit, Nunavut municipalities, and hunters' and trappers' organizations have all rung alarm bells over the development of a land use plan that applies only to the Nunavut settlement area. They all insist that the jurisdiction of the commission must expand to apply to the entire marine area along the east coast of Baffin Island and to the part of Hudson Bay that lies within the Nunavut territory yet outside of the Nunavut settlement area.

The commission believes that land use planning under the NLCA and the act could form the foundation for a world-class regulatory system that is envied by all nations. However, without appropriate financial and human resources and the expansion of the commission's jurisdiction to include all land, water, and marine areas within the Nunavut territory, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, in our view, will miss the mark.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you today.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

Our next presenter is Nadim Kara, who represents the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.

Nadim, we'll turn it over to you.

[Nadim Kara, Senior Program Director, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, I'd like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to speak to you all today in relation to Bill C-47.

I am Nadim Kara. I am the senior program director with PDAC and I am here to state our support for Bill C-47.

To do that, my colleagues from the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines and I have prepared a cover letter stating our support for the bill, and a more detailed written brief specific to NUPPAA.

We have also prepared this presentation with some additional background on our industry. I'll try to do it justice in about 10 minutes, and the detail is there for your reading later on.

Let me set the stage with a pie chart that demonstrates how mining is the largest private sector contributor in the north. In this chart you can see that mining alone is almost one-third of the Northwest Territories' gross domestic product, and when you add additional benefits, it's closer to one-half the economy. In Nunavut the single mine is already contributing close to 15% of that economy.

The chart on page 4 demonstrates the value of mineral production in the three territories. It is quickly apparent that in the Northwest Territories that value is not only significant but that it vastly outpaces that of both Nunavut and Yukon. Almost all of this is from the diamond mines.

In Nunavut the industry is just resurfacing after its previous mines closed, and this value you see is from just one gold mine, so there is significant opportunity in Nunavut to surpass the mineral production value of the Northwest Territories. The situation is similar in the Yukon.

On slide 5 you can see how our industry translates the value of mineral production into equally significant benefits in terms of jobs and business development. I think it's important to highlight that more than half the northern jobs created were generated for aboriginal people and nearly half the over $8 billion in spending was for aboriginal companies.

On slide 6 you can see a list of just some of the new aboriginal companies that have been generated since diamond mining began over 15 years ago.

Slide 7 also highlights the contribution in taxes. I should note that while I'm showing examples from the NWT, you should understand that the mine in Nunavut makes similar contributions.

Slide 8 takes you through the taxes paid in addition to corporate taxes and royalties, including fuel and property taxes, and has some information on resource royalty that the federal government has shared with aboriginal groups. Since 2001 this has totalled almost $34 million to the three land claim groups that have settled.

Slide 9 points out that mines don't last forever, so this chart shows the lives of the four mines in the NWT and the single mine in Nunavut. Since mines are not discovered every day, we need to be preparing now for their eventual closure through more exploration, which creates the pipeline through which new projects emerge.

Slide 10 gives you a sense of some of the advance projects that are currently in the pipeline. Most are in the pre-feasibility stage or in the environmental approvals process.

Slide 11 takes you through some of the estimated lifespans for these projects, which hold tremendous opportunity to sustain the industry for many years. However, they're not slam dunks; they're not guaranteed, and we need to do our part to create a supportive environment to increase their odds of success.

Slide 12 gives you a sense of the factors that influence the pipeline, which is exploration, which is what my association focuses on. This chart shows exploration investment in the three northern territories. You'll note that although Yukon and Nunavut have seen significant investment and mirror what has been happening around the world, in the NWT, despite similar geological potential and similar logistical challenges, exploration has been languishing. The fact is that due to unsettled land claims and an overly complex regulatory environment—perhaps “clunky”, as Paul has said—we've created uncertainty that is driving away investment.

This is why your work to pass good legislation is so important.

I'll take another moment to talk about exploration, using slide 13, where you see a graph that plots exploration in the NWT and Nunavut as a percentage of all money spent on mineral exploration in Canada. You'll see that Nunavut is doing quite well at holding its own, but the continued decline in the Northwest Territories demonstrates what can happen when there isn't a good investment climate and when money leaves.

That brings us to slide 14, which is our work today. This is why we support Bill C-47 and why we support the enactment of the NWT Surface Rights Board Act as it is.

That is, I think, the first statement. We think it provides a court of last resort to help deal with land use conflicts, it fulfills the last piece of legislation called for under land claims, and it readies the Northwest Territories legislative framework for devolution. We want Canada to hand over a complete and modern package of legislation when they devolve mining to the Northwest Territories government. That is all we'll say today on the NWT Surface Rights Board Act.

We also support the enactment of NUPPAA; however, we propose amendments in six places. I'll walk you through those now.

Some of you have seen this presentation already. My colleague Tom Hoefer presented to some of you in the north, so I apologize to those of you who have seen it already.

Slide 15 takes you through a bit of how we look at NUPPAA. The simple sustainable development triangle highlights the balance, which I think Paul also referred to, in trying to achieve environmental, social, and economic objectives. We want to be in the middle, and we think our amendments will take the act into the middle.

Let me describe those amendments now.

The first amendment is with respect to timelines, as seen on slide 16. We support a 24-month process as an efficient process. It's good not only for process certainty, but also for project logistics and cost. Identified here are a number of open-ended timelines in various clauses that we believe need to be tightened up.

On the next page, at slide 17, the second amendment is with respect to schedule 3, which is incomplete. Under the land use plan, some classes of work can be exempted from screening and can proceed directly to the regulatory phase. We recommend that this schedule be completed before NUPPAA is proclaimed.

On page 18, the third amendment talks about minor variances. Although minor variances provide a flexible and adaptive approach to projects, which is good, the process for dealing with these minor variances is quite complex. We recommend that it be simplified to allow the commission to grant or deny minor variances without the overly complex requirements that are discussed in our brief.

The next amendment, on page 19, is about offences. We think it's unnecessary to create offences under the land use plan. It was not anticipated or contemplated in the land claims agreement itself. It's important to highlight here that we're not against offences; we just think they belong under the permits section issued by the regulatory side of NUPPAA. We recommend the deletion of the proposed subsection that deals with this aspect.

On page 20, the fifth amendment relates to grandfathering. I know that I'm walking you through this quickly, so thank you for bearing with me.

This amendment is pretty important to us. Millions to billions of dollars in mining investments are made on the basis of regulatory certainty. Once the investment is made, miners are captive. We can't pick up and move our mines to find a more favourable jurisdiction if someone moves the goalposts. NUPPAA currently has very complex and ambiguous wording with respect to grandfathering. We recommend that the draft be amended to more clearly provide grandfathering of projects, as described here and in our brief.

The final amendment, on page 21, provides for a comprehensive review of the act after five years to make refinements that might be necessary. This is required under similar legislation in Yukon. We believe that had this requirement been in place for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, we might have resolved some of the challenges that we face today in the NWT under that legislation.

To conclude at page 22, we think mining is the north's economic advantage. The Conference Board of Canada report that recently was published highlights that. It's creating significant benefits for communities. Its environmental stewardship record has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. We support the NWT Surface Rights Board Act as is, and we support NUPPAA but recommend the six amendments I've mentioned today.

I'll stop there and leave you on the last slide with some photos that remind you of why mining is so important. At the end of the day, it's about people generating both the economic opportunities and the chance to improve quality of life for northerners and all Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Kara. We appreciate that.

From the Mining Association of Canada, we have Mr. Pierre Gratton and Mr. Rick Meyers with us this morning.

We thank you and turn it over to you for your opening statement.

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you very much.

In addition to our brief, we've provided a PowerPoint presentation that illustrates a bit more what's happening in the mining industry globally, and Canada's role within that global industry. I would encourage you to take a look at that at your leisure. It also highlights the potential in Nunavut in the coming years, a potential that both of my colleagues have already referred to.

I'm CEO of the Mining Association of Canada. I'm joined by my colleague Rick Meyers, who's been with us for several years. Prior to that he spent several years with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development as director of northern affairs. He's spent a very good part of his life helping Canada develop the diamond mining industry in the Northwest Territories.

MAC represents the producing side of the business. In that sense we're different from the PDAC. We have some 35 or 36 members engaged in exploration, mining, smelting, and refining across the country, across a range of commodities.

In 2011, the year for which we have the most recent statistics, the mining industry contributed some $35.6 billion to the GDP and employed some 320,000 workers, paying some $9 billion in taxes and royalties to provincial and federal governments. The sector also accounted for almost 23% of exports, exporting a record $102 billion worth of metals, non-metals, and coal.

I highlight the word “record”. We've been breaking records lately, and again, that speaks to what's happening in the commodities market globally. Canadian mineral production reached a record high in 2011 of $50.3 billion, a 21% increase over the previous year. We also broke new records in mineral exploration, a lot of which is going into the northern territories.

According to our research, we've estimated that there's as much as $140 billion in new investment that could come forward in the next five to 10 years across Canada, $8 billion of which is targeted for Nunavut. A good chunk of that $140 billion is already actually being spent. That number focuses on projects that are either in development or in later stages of environmental review. We are certainly hopeful that this new legislation will help increase these opportunities and turn these opportunities into reality.

To ensure that the mining industry's contribution to our economy remains robust, a competitive and predictable domestic investment and regulatory environment is crucial. To this end, we encourage this committee and the government to continue to support Canada's investment climate through regulatory improvement, as demonstrated by this legislation.

We welcome the tabling of Bill C-47. We are particularly optimistic about the inclusion of the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, which resulted--and I want to emphasize this--from a broad and thoughtful approach to stakeholder engagement, a level of engagement that in my experience on northern legislation was unprecedented with our industry. We've been involved since the bill's early stages of development and participated in several rounds of a multi-stakeholder process to provide industry input into the legislation. Overall, we are pleased with the advancements the legislation presents; however, we do believe there are some opportunities for improvement.

We have four suggested improvements, but they're also contained in my colleagues submissions from the PDAC. I'll try to run over these fairly briefly, in the interests of time.

The first is with respect to timelines. I would note that the timeline for comprehensive studies is to a maximum of two years; south of 60, the timeline for comprehensive studies is a year or less. There is a difference there. We recognize the land claims process in the north imposes obligations that may make it harder to achieve the more ambitious goals of the south; nevertheless, we flag for you that there is a pretty big difference between the two.

On classes of works and activities exempt from screening, jurisdictions typically do not require screening and/or environmental assessment of certain classes of low-impact activities. Schedule 3 of this bill is intended to confirm such classes of projects not required to undergo screening or environmental assessment in Nunavut; however, the schedule has not yet been completed, creating uncertainty as to the details of these classes. In that regard, we recommend that schedule 3 be completed in advance of the bill coming into force.

My colleague has also touched on the issue of minor variances. I would emphasize as well that we suggest that the Nunavut Planning Commission be provided with the authority to grant minor variances at its own discretion without a full public review process, but with the requirement to publish the commission's reasons for the decision on the public registry.

My colleague from the PDAC also mentioned offences under land use plans. Creating quasi-criminal offences for certain non-compliance activities under land use plans is unusual and unnecessary. In B.C., land use planning does not include criminal offences. For the most part across Canada, I'm not aware of examples of where that exists. We as well believe that the offences aspect should be removed from the bill.

The tabling of Bill C-47 is timely, given the announcement that Canada will be leading the Arctic Council for the next two years. Through its position as chair of the multinational council, Canada can help demonstrate the positive economic contributions that natural resource projects can bring to the circumpolar region and the importance of having effective legislation in place that allows for responsible development to take place for the benefit of northern peoples.

This legislation, I would emphasize, comes at a critical time for Nunavut, with its promising mineral potential and with opportunities for economic development never before seen in the territory's history.

The ideal outcome for this bill would be to have a new regulatory regime that helps enhance the region's economic development while ensuring mining projects go through a robust assessment and permitting process. We believe this is possible, particularly with the proposed changes we've recommended.

For the foreseeable future, mining will be Nunavut's most important private sector economic activity. Mine developments bring critical economic and social benefits: employment, business and skills development, and revenues and contributions towards enhancing the education and social development programs that contribute in many ways to improving the quality of life for Nunavummiut. Such advancements bring stability, enhanced capacity, and confidence in the territory's abilities to sustain its people's future.

The positive economic contributions that mining projects bring to the north are clearly demonstrated by the startup of the Meadowbank gold mine, which is currently Nunavut's only operating mine. Since it began production in 2010, Nunavut's GDP has increased by 12%. The mine employs more than 500 people, 38% of whom are Inuit. Moreover, through a historic agreement with the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the operator, Agnico-Eagle, has established new business opportunities and provided funding for education and skills development for people of the north. The approach taken by Agnico-Eagle in Nunavut is the way our industry operates today, and is what the people of Nunavut can expect from other projects in the future.

Nunavut is the least explored region in Canada, but is blessed with a very high mineral potential. There are six major projects moving through Nunavut's environmental assessment, including another one by Agnico-Eagle. With several more on the horizon, as was mentioned by my colleague from the Nunavut Planning Commission, it's estimated that before the end of the decade, development could double in the territory.

It will also help to ensure the Inuit of Nunavut will be able to take advantage of new employment, training, and business opportunities before them. The people are its future, and the advancement of their economic and social advantages will determine Nunavut's ability to compete on the would stage. The completion of NUPPAA as an enabling legislation is an essential element for the achievement of that goal. We strongly urge the committee to move forward with this legislation expeditiously.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gratton. Thank you to each one of our witnesses for coming today and spending this time with us.

We will begin our questions with Mr. Bevington for the first seven minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the presenters here. It's always important we hear from you, and actually this is the second presentation from NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines.

In the first presentation I brought up a point with this graph on exploration. Really the desire to change the regulatory system in the Northwest Territories is being driven by this sense that exploration has declined in the Northwest Territories. That's what's driving it. It's not being driven by the number of mines that are now in environmental assessment, which is actually quite large for the Northwest Territories.

I'm always interested in the statistics. If you had taken a 20-year view of exploration in the Northwest Territories, you'd see we had a huge bubble of exploration in the nineties throughout the whole Slave geographic province, where we put in enormous effort and probably led the whole country in mining exploration for almost a whole decade. You can compare it to what's happening here with Nunavut and the Yukon, where their mining exploration is finally taking off; much of the Northwest Territories has been through that mining exploration boom, and you see that mining exploration, although not high this year, is the fourth-highest on your graph in the last 14 years. Does this make it a crisis situation?

You and the whole industry have been hammering on the Northwest Territories about mining exploration. After a while, I get a little tired of it. I don't see it in your graphs that....

This other graph you have on page 13 suggests to me that finally the rest of the country is catching up on mining exploration. Things like the Ring of Fire and many other areas in southern Canada have exploded with mining exploration; the dollars are going there, which is correct, because those are the areas of interest right now.

This is a very important point. This is what this government's basing changing our regulatory system on, more so than the surface rights board, but we'll probably get into the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act a little later on.

In reality, when you look at these numbers and you look at the history of mining exploration in the Northwest Territories, you have to say to yourself, “Let's be realistic here; mining exploration is still continuing in the north.” Our major area, which is the Slave geographic province, went through a huge bubble in the nineties. Why, then, are you continuing to try to make this argument, which in some ways is simply not following the facts?

[Nadim Kara]

I'll start off, and then I'll pass it to my colleague Mr. Meyers.

There are a couple of points I want to make. The first is that the difference between the two graphs is significant, in that one is absolute value and one is relative value. While the figures on slide 12 may be quite high, as you pointed out, and exploration expenditures are higher in 2012 than they were in the early 2000s, first of all, it's—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

They are the fourth highest over those 14 years.

[Nadim Kara]

First of all, these figures aren't adjusted for inflation, so that's one point.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That might make a little difference.

[Nadim Kara]

The second is what we're seeing with the huge upswing in metal prices throughout the 2000s. Graph 13 shows that despite similar geology and despite similar logistical challenges, NWT should have seen a similar upswing in maintaining its percentage of overall exploration in Canada. I think that's the significant message. Compared to other jurisdictions in the north, why is there this precipitous decline? The total volume of money going into the mineral sector around the world has been going up exponentially, so why is there a relative decline here? I think that's the first question.

The second one is that while there was a lot of exploration in the 1990s, the distribution of commodities—what people are looking for—is significant as well. A lot of that exploration was for diamonds after those first discoveries were found, and you're seeing the proportion of expenditures allocated to the diamond sector dropping precipitously, according to the Metals Economics Group's latest expenditure reports for 2011 and 2012.

When you look at the pipeline of projects coming down, you see that NWT is maybe benefiting from previous decades of exploration with the number of projects in the pipeline, but its ability to have that same constellation of projects in the regulatory process in 20 years' time is being hampered by its relative underperformance in attracting investment exploration.

Those are the two points I'll make. I'll let Rick respond as well.

[Rick Meyers, Vice-President, Technical and Northern Affairs, Mining Association of Canada]

Thanks.

Mr. Bevington, I think you're referring to the diamond-staking rush during the early 1990s. Diamonds were discovered in 1991, and production began in 1998.

There currently are three diamond mines operating in the Northwest Territories. Those mines have been operating for over a decade now, for the most part, and they're reaching maturity. They need to be replaced, or at least the reserves need to be replaced, and that requires exploration.

It's one thing to say, yes, the NWT certainly did very well during the 1990s in terms of exploration, and it certainly has reaped the rewards of that exploration. The diamond industry is still a brand new industry in Canada, in fact, and will be in place for some time, but I think it's important to recognize that life goes on. Those mines will come to their conclusion, will reach their mine life, and for the Northwest Territories to continue to reap those benefits, exploration needs to continue.

On the Nunavut side, with the current exploration situation and the very good list of projects coming forward, Nunavut stands to reap the same benefits over the next decade or so that the Northwest Territories did with the diamond-staking rush, so maybe it's Nunavut's turn, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be continuing exploration in the Northwest Territories.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Clarke now, for the next seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming in. Some of you have travelled a great distance to get here today. Welcome to a little bit warmer weather.

To the Mining Association of Canada, I understand you've participated in negotiations since 2009. Is that correct?

[Rick Meyers]

Do you mean in consultations on this legislation? Yes.

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

As we've heard from other witnesses, these negotiations have been going on for over a decade now. I'm seeing that economic development for the territories will lead to employment for aboriginals all across the northern territories and in my riding in northern Saskatchewan as well.

We heard testimony from the Government of Nunavut that they support this bill in its current form and consider that it offers other improvements to the land use process for the environmental review process. Would you agree with this view?

[Pierre Gratton]

Yes. I think that was the essence of my remarks earlier.

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

How do you think this bill will assist Inuit, as well as Nunavut as a whole, by fostering this economic development?

[Pierre Gratton]

Well, I didn't make this point earlier because I didn't want to belabour it—what's done is done—but this legislation, you could argue, is 16 years late. It was promised when the territory was first created, and it's taken this long to bring this final piece of legislation to Nunavut. There are previous pieces of legislation that provide the regulatory framework for the territory in place now, but it's taken a long time.

In the absence of this, there's been uncertainty. We've sort of...“muddled through” is an exaggeration, but we have not been operating with the kind of regulatory certainty that I think industry would normally like to see.

This is the final piece that brings Nunavut into the modern age, and arguably very well into the modern age, because it's very progressive legislation. I think it positions the territory really well.

I think our sense too—and I think you saw it from the commissioner's remarks—is that Nunavut is very hopeful and optimistic about its future. It's welcoming our industry within a framework that balances economic development with environmental concerns, and we respect that.

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

Can you explain the importance of land use plans in helping to ensure the environment's protection?

[Pierre Gratton]

Land use planning provides a sort of road map and a sense of the priorities of the people who live there. It helps delineate and provide industry with a sense of where they're going to be most welcome and areas where they might want to tread a little more lightly. That kind of information is far better to have up front than late in the process. Land use planning provides you with that early information that I think helps guide investment decisions.