Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 26th, 2015

[Teresa Meadows]

Okay. I will focus, then, on a couple of things.

The first is, there is no working definition right now of “anticipated duration”. I recognize that the committee has our written submissions as well. The anticipated duration of an individual project is a live issue at present. In just the last year, we have two licences before the Board year where the question became, what truly is the end of an undertaking? Is it at the time that the water use or waste deposit associated with that undertaking ceases, or is it a long-term monitoring requirement? When you're talking about a major mine project, the question of whether or not the anticipated duration includes the monitoring component, or whether it includes only the active water use or waste deposit, remains a live issue. In the submissions for those two licences—the former Nanisivik and Polaris Mines—there was no consensus among the parties on how long a licence should remain for an undertaking.

The second thing I want to talk about is time limits. I heard a question as to the average processing time for a water licence. I think there is a perception that the water licensing process is an extensive one, a difficult one, and an arduous one, all of which, of course, from the Water Board's perspective, is perhaps not an accurate characterization. From the stage when a complete application is received for type A licence, which is a major mining project or a major water licence with a larger water use, the average time is about 9 to 12 months. Three months of that time is included in notice provisions, that is, provisions where the Board cannot proceed with processing. That's because we have to give a month's notice for comment at the time the application is received with respect to technical review and completeness, and also a 60-day notice period in advance of a public hearing. Type A water licences require a form of public hearing. The 9 to 12 months is average. When you start to talk about more extensive time—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Ms. Meadows, I'm terribly sorry, but I'm going to have to cut you off there. We have gone over time significantly at this point.

You'll maybe be able to get the remainder of some of the things you need to present in the questioning, which we will move to now. My apologies for that, but we will move to Mr. Bevington now for questions.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, who all have presented really interesting and detailed issues regarding this bill, which I think may present some challenges for us on this committee going forward.

I sat on the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Environmental Impact Review Board and understand some of the complexity of it.

I want to go into one area. We're all skirting around this idea of who has to pay for the work that has to be done.

Ms. Kingston, could we characterize mining development as a partnership between the owner of the resource and the company that wants to develop it? Is that really what's going on here?

[Elizabeth Kingston]

Yes, I think that's a fair statement.

But one of the limitations that the industry has to deal with is the price of commodities. When prices are very low, as they are now, when we begin to talk about adding additional cost to that review, whether it's for water licences or an environmental review, it becomes more prohibitive for the proponent to be able to move forward.

Certainly, yes, we would look at it as a partnering arrangement so that all of the measures are in place to ensure that the project moves forward.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

In any partnership, the process you enter into with an environmental assessment, with regulation, is a planning process between those who own the resource and those who wish to exploit it.

Is it correct that this is a planning process for the development of the resource?

[Elizabeth Kingston]

Yes, I would describe it that way.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Okay, so if it's a planning process, then it has value to both sides. If the planning is done properly, the government will collect additional resource revenue through taxation. If the planning is done correctly, the company will have a better opportunity to develop the resource and have a higher profit.

Is that not really what we're dealing with here?

[Elizabeth Kingston]

Yes, that's correct.

The other more important party, I guess, would be at the community level. The community level benefits as a result of the economic development opportunity.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

When the people of Nunavut own their resources rather than them being held in trust, as they are now by the Government of Canada, it will be a much better situation for those people in Nunavut. As it stands now, the Government of Canada still owns those resources.

[Elizabeth Kingston]

In part, a number of the projects are actually on Inuit-owned lands, so there would be a shared ownership arrangement between the federal government and the respective Inuit association.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Do you think the fact that communities are not getting proper resources to facilitate the planning process with the companies is something we should correct with this bill?

With regard to communities and individuals who want to intervene in the environmental process at their cost—because they really have no opportunity to cover those costs later on with the development of the resource—do you think it's appropriate that those people should receive compensation for their work and be encouraged to do that work, so that the planning process goes ahead in a good fashion?

[Adam Chamberlain, Director, North West Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines]

I guess we hadn't come prepared to talk about community funding. We're here principally to talk about the issues as presented in the legislation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Philosophically, I mean, do you see the relationship as important, that the people in the communities are able to interact with you so the planning process goes ahead in a good fashion?

[Adam Chamberlain]

Of course.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

We have a philosophical similarity when we talk about these things—all of us in the north. We want things to be done correctly, and that requires resources.

On the other side, with companies, you're concerned that you have to pay for your share of the planning process you're going into. You don't particularly like that you have to pay for that.

[Adam Chamberlain]

I could start with a comment, and Ms. Kingston could add.

There is no hesitation by industry to pay its fair share of the cost of moving through a regulatory process related to any project. What is troublesome to industry is the fact that in Nunavut the costs of these processes are significantly higher than they would be in less remote areas in the south. By imposing cost recovery in the same way you might, say, if your project were in northern Ontario near roads where you can get in and out—not to say there aren't remote communities in northern parts of provinces as well, but comparing the cost and the effect on projects—it acts as a disincentive to development in the north. What we are talking about here are benefits that would not just be for companies, not just for the landowner, or the Inuit, or the Government of Canada, but rather for all Nunavummiut, for all northerners.

The notion that some of those costs should be shared by society broadly is what we are talking about here.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Really what it's going to come down to is that cost recovery would be done in regulation. You would determine what would be a fair exchange for your portion that should be covered by industry. If we accept the principle of cost recovery, then really there's a negotiation process that should take place to understand how those costs should be divided.

[Adam Chamberlain]

That's one approach. Depending on where this legislation is going now, it probably is going toward dealing with it in regulation somehow.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

I agree with you. We don't want to hinder industry, but at the same time if value is added to your side through the process, then, of course, there is some logic that you would pay for some of that value.

[Adam Chamberlain]

That is what industry does do. Industry will pay for its fair share of the regulatory expenses of approving a project. We want to see that it is not borne inappropriately.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

We could say that industry would probably—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Mr. Bevington, there are about three seconds left in your time, so I don't know if there would be time for a question and a response in that time.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Okay, fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Barlow, we have you for the next seven minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Ms. Kingston, you spoke about overbonding a little bit, and from what I understand—we talked a little bit about it before you got here—an industry or a corporation looking at doing a project would have to do bonding with the territorial government as well as the Inuit landowners. Is that right? Can you explain how the changes to this will address that? You talked about it maybe not going far enough.

Can you talk about what overbonding is, what the changes have been, and maybe some of your suggestions on how we can improve that?