Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2011

[Eberhard Scherkus]

I think some of the projects have to be provided with pre-screening. A lot of the projects are technically complicated, and I think you cannot permit the whole project in one lump sum for some of the work. It becomes very difficult and very complex. If there are certain elements that can be pre-screened, so that work and more data can be gathered in a very systematic fashion, that would greatly help project development.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

We've heard from other witnesses about regulation in other jurisdictions, where they directly put one person to steer each project through the regulatory system. Essentially, there's a bureaucrat who's there, not to work against you but to work for you, to try to speed you through the system.

Have any of you had experience with that? If not, what would be your opinion as to how helpful that would be?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Hanks, go ahead.

[Chris Hanks]

I have direct experience with it, having worked on a project in Alaska. When you bring a project proposal forward, the first thing that happens is the State of Alaska appoints a project manager for it. The second thing that happens is that all of the responsible agencies sit down with the proponent to come up with a schedule and a timeline for the review.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Does it work?

[Chris Hanks]

It does work. In the Alaskan system, there is proponent funding for part of that process, and that's based on agreement over a schedule. That process does work quite well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Merritt, go ahead, please.

[John Merritt, Senior Policy Advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

I have two comments. In response to the previous question, ITK would support some of those priorities identified in terms of what could be done immediately, primarily the investment of some additional funds in the institutions set up to review projects in Nunavut.

As Mr. Hanks said, the level of review is exponentially greater than when those boards were first created, and the Planning and Project Assessment Act is very close to being tabled, I understand.

In terms of your second question, I have a point of caution. The main features of the assessment process for projects in Nunavut are very much anchored in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. That's a constitutionally protected treaty, so you can't innovate in terms of introducing time limits and processes that are at odds with that agreement. The reason why there is so much shared interest in the new legislation is that the new legislation works very carefully within the treaty.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Let me ask a really quick follow-up question then, because the Nunavut and Inuit populations would be some of the prime beneficiaries of the jobs, employment, etc. What suggestions would you have to help things speed up within the framework and legal jurisdictions you're in, and what would you be willing to contribute and get involved with to help speed up those economic benefits, which would, in cooperation, be of great benefit to you? The question is for either of the representatives.

[John Merritt]

I think your last two questions merge, because in the case of Nunavut, the two things that could be done and that it would support would be to strengthen the boards that are already in place, which, with more resources, could process things faster, and try to get the legislation on the books that will amplify the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement without violating it. Those are two very important steps.

In terms of what Inuit are doing besides that, I think, as some of the witnesses mentioned, Inuit owned a lot of land in Nunavut and have worked very hard since 1993 to create their own capacity to process applications for projects on Inuit-owned land.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Connell, very briefly, please.

[Larry Connell, Vice-President, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines]

I don't think industry is asking for any change in the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, or the process, or the regulation of the law that applies. What we're looking for is a streamlining of administrative processes within that. There's an awful lot of duplication going on within the process right now, where we go through this review of the projects. We take it out for technical review. We do that once, twice, and each time we do that, there are costs to us, but there are also costs to every one of the federal government regulatory bodies that have to participate, and there's a lot of duplication. We end up going back to the communities, between environment assessment and permitting, a total of three times. So even the communities ask us when this project is going to take place, because we've been there three times asking for their input.

We're looking for a streamlining of the process that's not changing the umbrella under which it sends the protection that's there under law or regulation. We don't need to change that. It's the administrative process of how that's applied.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much.

We'll have to suspend the meeting now. We will be back as soon as we can. Once we get a few people back we can hear from witnesses and go ahead with questioning, even if we don't have quorum.

Mr. Stewart, if you'll be back, I believe you're starting with the questions.

Thank you very much.

I'll suspend the meeting until after the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will resume the meeting now.

We are going to Mr. Stewart, from the NDP, for up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have the weight of the whole opposition on your shoulders here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order—sorry to do this.

We had said we were going to go.... I think the time is going to be extended in the House. Some people have to leave at six.

Is six o'clock okay with the opposition?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go until six.

Are you all okay until six?

[Voices]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, great. If somebody has to leave, we won't be offended.

Go ahead, Mr. Stewart.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay, thanks.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming in. We've learned lots about mining and geomapping over the last few weeks. Again, every story kind of reinforces the others, so that's very helpful. We're learning a little bit more as we go along.

My first question is for Mr. Cheechoo, from the ITK. I was reading the circumpolar Inuit declaration with great interest, especially clause 3.7, which says:

Partnerships must acknowledge that industrial development of the natural resource wealth of the Arctic can proceed only insofar as it enhances the economic and social well-being of Inuit and safeguards our environmental security.

These are very reasonable demands that any community would expect. I'd like to ask you how this is going. From your perspective, how well is clause 3.7 is being respected in terms of development in your communities?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cheechoo.

[John Cheechoo]

Is it the resource declaration you're talking about?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

It was on this....