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

[Nadim Kara]

Since the comments on the amendments are for this presentation, I'll start with one, perhaps, and then turn it over. Recognizing that you haven't had a chance to review it, let me just enter into the record my hope that for our next submission we will have a chance to have that dialogue before coming here. My apologies for that.

On the timelines issue, I want to clarify that in my presentation I wasn't suggesting that our association supports a reduction in timelines. What we wanted to say was that we support the timelines that are in the act, but we think some proposed sections leave open the possibility that those timelines won't be met. We think that in those specific proposed sections, the timeline of two years should be referenced in order to make this consistent throughout the act. I think that's a very important distinction to clarify. I'll stop there.

[Pierre Gratton]

I would add on the timelines point that it is particularly with respect to the NIRB portion of the review process, not the planning commission's portion, where we saw opportunities for improvement.

I would also emphasize that when we referred to offences under the land use plan, what we found unusual was the criminal offences that are there, and I would agree completely with the point that land use planning without any measure to enforce it is meaningless. I would agree with that. It was the Criminal Code offences that we found to be somewhat heavy-handed.

Also, with respect to minor variances, what we have been suggesting is that the planning commission itself have the discretion to make those determinations. We're not suggesting that minor variances be granted willy-nilly without public review, but we have full confidence in the commission's ability to determine, from time to time, if something is of really minimal consequence and doesn't merit a full comprehensive review by the public. They should have the discretion to do that. They have such a unique role as the people's body, in a sense, that we thought they could have the discretion to do that, but it would be their decision and nobody else's.

I just wanted to emphasize those three points.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll hear from Ms. Crowder now, for four or five minutes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming before us today.

I have to admit that it's a bit surprising to see the industry provide amendments that the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board didn't see, given that everybody is talking about this long process in which everybody was included. I think it's a bit surprising to have you receive them here today.

Mr. Quassa, I have a question for you and your team around other amendments that have been proposed. Both the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the NTI have proposed other amendments. I wonder if you've had an opportunity to examine them. I wonder if you support any of those amendments, or if you just want to see the legislation proceed as is.

[Paul Quassa]

Well, generally speaking we support what NTI is proposing, but we have different perspectives from what is in NIRB's proposed amendment. I'll ask Sharon to provide a bit more detail.

[Sharon Ehaloak]

Thank you.

We do support 100% the NTI submission. With regard to the consultation process, NTI is not presenting anything new. It is what has been on the table and has consistently been ignored by government—

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Sorry; my comment about new information was about industry. I'm very well aware that NTI has presented those amendments throughout the process. Thank you for clarifying that, though.

[Sharon Ehaloak]

Just to be clear, industry was not at the table during the negotiating process. Industry directly communicated with government, not with the parties through the process. That needs to be clarified.

With regard to NIRB's submission, the commission does not agree with that. We were very surprised to see it. With regard to the NTI submission, we know that the wording of the land claims agreement does need to be amended and what we believe they're proposing will reflect the needs for this legislation to go forward.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Boyd, do you have a comment? I know Carol wants to get a quick question in, but I want to thank you again for clearly laying out the concern around resources. It's a concern we've raised consistently at this table, and it's very important that you have an understanding of the resources that you're going to have in place in order to move forward with implementation of this piece of legislation.

Carol, do you have a question?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

You've talked about the funding. Basically this is legislation that would go forward with some tools missing. The tool box is not quite full, and the job can't really be done. Can you elaborate on some of the failures that this would contribute to? Would there be confusion? Does it limit the ability to consult? I ask because although there have been four days of consultation on this side, I know, because I have a geographically challenged riding, that in four days I can't do the proper consultation. Is it going to hinder the ability to protect the environment on one side as well?

Basically I'm wondering about the danger of moving forward without amendments and whether this bill should have been split.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You have about a minute.

[Sharon Ehaloak]

Should it be split? No.

Is it moving forward financially without that piece? It was identified from day one by the commission that the funding should be included in the bill, and that consistently has been ignored. Government has told us that it's moving forward as cost-neutral. That's been unacceptable. We will not be able to fulfill the obligations if the legislation moves forward without the funding.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

What happens, then, if you can't...?

[Sharon Ehaloak]

Well, governments and the commission will be in court, and we'll probably be sued by the proponents because we will not be able to.... First and foremost, there is the public registry. To implement we need transitional money. We need implementation money, and we need ongoing O and M dollars to sustain it.

I'm trying to go quickly because I know I have a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You're still within the timeframe.

[Sharon Ehaloak]

We have the obligation to create a public registry. We have the obligation to staff and to prepare the staff and to familiarize them with the legislation and the new timelines. The language obligations are also new. In our presentation in 2010, we provided the initial costs. From the time of our original submission, I'm sure there have been cost escalators, and we will not be able to fulfill our obligations under the legislation, given the requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll turn now to Mr. Wilks for five minutes.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

My questions are geared towards the Mining Association of Canada. Welcome, Pierre. It's nice to see you again.

Your organization was consulted during the development of this bill. Are you satisfied with the mining association's participation during the development of this bill, and can you provide to this committee what that type of consultation was?

[Pierre Gratton]

First, to clarify a little, I think there is a big difference between our interaction with government versus that of the commission and other boards and agencies within the north, and the NTI. We were consulted; theirs was a negotiation. It was a higher level of involvement. I'm not questioning that. I think that's appropriate.

What I did see, which I highlighted in my remarks, is that the level of consultation we were given was far greater than we had seen in the past. We very much appreciated that. There was a lot of back-and-forth. I think it was, in part, that in the Northwest Territories the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act certainly went through some growing pains, and there were some times when things were not going so well.

To Rick's point earlier, it has matured, and with respect to new mining developments in the NWT, the regulatory system is better now than it used to be. I think there was a desire by the government to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and to seek more input from industry than had been the case with the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. I think that was part of it, and we were very much appreciative of it.

I would also like to comment on our recommendations in this brief. They were recommendations we had made previously. Not everything we submitted was accepted, so what you're seeing here is what we've said before. The commission has not seen this brief because we have only prepared it for this particular session, but they've seen these recommendations before, because they have been in the public domain.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

With regard to the proposed legislation that would come into law with general application in the Northwest Territories, what advantages do you see to this legislation applying to both settled and unsettled lands?

[Rick Meyers]

It doesn't apply to unsettled lands because it is in Nunavut and there's only one land claim and it's settled. I don't think it applies to unsettled lands.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Okay.

Do you support this bill, and would you give us any concerns related to the specific provisions under the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act?

[Rick Meyers]

While we understand that the surface rights board act is a commitment under land claims agreements, I think it's an important last resort, if you like, in terms of dispute resolution in access to land. It applies more appropriately to the junior exploration sector in the mining process.

Sorry, I've forgotten the rest of the question.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'd like a little clarification. I sit at the back door of Teck Resources Limited and I watch the Elkview pit being utilized to its maximum every day.

I wonder if you could clarify a little the definition of “minor variance”. My definition of a minor variance would be a change to a blast pattern based on waste rock versus haul material. You wouldn't have to go through an application to change that; it would be a mining decision of that company.

Could you give me a definition of minor variance that you have a concern with?

[Pierre Gratton]

What you're describing would typically be handled by the provincial mines inspector, and that would have its own regulatory permitting process associated with it. That's not really what we're referring to here; it's more on the front end of the business.