Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think I'd defer most of it to the Nunavut Water Board, as it's more applicable to them. We could just say that we've supported the Nunavut Water Board's concerns about capacity and the need to ensure that there's adequate resourcing for the boards to do their jobs, as well as to ensure that there are actual board member appointments in place.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you for the question. Ours is very straightforward. At the Nunavut Impact Review Board we had two main concerns. We feel that one of the concerns in our submission was addressed, and that's the ability for us to continue to coordinate with the Nunavut Water Board with respect to timelines.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  We'll start with it again for the Nunavut Impact Review Board. Recognizing that our concerns with the bill are very focused, our primary concern was the ability to be able to continue to coordinate and make use of the progress that we've made through the years. That's been addressed.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It's a significant shift, more in who the board is reporting to and who is then left to respond back to the board and implement the board's decisions. It would shift more to a territory focus than the federal government....

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think it's a fair question. For projects that have gone through an environmental review and then, as you suggest, are subject to such changing things as the expected production or the placement of major project components, right now, as the land claim stands, because the board for a project that it has reviewed produces a project certificate that lays out the terms and conditions by which that project can be developed, when anything significant changes—whether they want to change a component of the project or whether something is just not working, where it works out differently on the ground from what was expected—there is the ability for the board, the government, Nunavut Tunngavik, a member of the public, or the proponent to essentially make application that the terms and conditions aren't working and need to be revisited through a formal assessment process.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It's important to recognize that by putting notice on the proponent to report on these changes and any significant modifications, it doesn't change the process for reconsidering. What it does do is it gives another means, with the new enforcement powers that will be under the act, to hold a proponent to account if they're not in fact reporting these changes and if they have to be brought up through other means.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think Elizabeth is right. With the enforcement provisions, it certainly brings a new level of teeth or accountability and adherence to our terms and conditions. With regard to devolution and recognizing that the act itself is somewhat removed from that type of process, I think the biggest thing to keep in mind is that currently in Nunavut approximately 80% of the land is administered by the crown.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. Yes, Elizabeth is correct. Perhaps as a concrete example, in the past there has been a clear ban on uranium mining in Nunavut. More recently that ban was overturned. In the same communities where there was almost total opposition based on, I think, more recent experience with having a gold mine in their backyard, and seeing both the opportunities and the impacts that come along with that, it's led to a greater understanding of what comes with development sometimes.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think that's a fair statement.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Since that time, since CEAA was removed from the territory, it has been on an ad hoc basis. Each time the board has recommended that a project be subject to a full review, the board has indicated whether or not it believes participant funding should be made available. In some cases it's been granted.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Unfortunately what we've seen is that more recently there seems to be a misunderstanding. There are two types of public reviews in Nunavut. One is done by the board, and for more transboundary projects there is a federal panel review, which allows different representation by affected groups.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  That's certainly correct. The main message I think we would try to get across is that without an established participant funding program, the board has to ensure that the affected groups have the ability to fully participate. As a result, we may need to extend timelines for comments so people have more time to prepare, because they don't have resources or help.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think we could say that our funding has increased since that time, but there's been no formal review process for it, no transparent process. It's not a very well kept secret that our board as well as the other boards are currently chronically underfunded and have substantial difficulties in achieving their full mandate because of it.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think clarifying things in the legislation helps clarify expectations. In some cases doing that can make it easier for the board to ensure that it's meeting those expectations very clearly. The main other increase in efficiency is in having a clearer understanding of when certain decisions are coming back and of the timeline for them to come back from the minister's office, instead of that being an unknown.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Certainly. I'll try to do it quickly in the interest of time, as there are many means by which we do it.