Lands & Regulation - Nunavut Planning - Industry Letter

More documents

Recommendations

Info

section 95 (modification or abandonment of a project) – 120 days plus a potential extension for an additional 60 days; section 105 (ministerial decision following a determination by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) that a project should proceed) – 120 days plus a potential extension for an additional 60 days; and section 106 (ministerial decision following a determination by the NIRB that a project should not proceed) – 120 days plus a potential extension for an additional 60 days). Second, of even greater concern are the elements of the process that could last for as much as 360 days, or essentially an entire year, instances of which are as follows: section 125 (ministerial decision following a determination by a federal environmental assessment panel that project should proceed) – 180 days plus a potential extension for an additional 180 days; section 126 (ministerial decision following a determination by a federal environmental assessment panel that project should not proceed) – 180 days plus a potential extension for an additional 180 days; Conversely, there are elements of the assessment and review process that, in our view, should have been the subject of timelines or timeframes, but none have been provided for. Examples include: section 99 – determination of the scope of a project by the NIRB; section 101 – development, approval and issuance of the guidelines for the preparation of an environmental and socio-economic impact statement; and sections 102 and 103 – conduct and completion of the review of the proposed project by the NIRB. We further note that subsection 92(4) authorizes the Minister to extend the 45-day period for submission of the report that the NIRB is required to submit pursuant to subsection 92(1). However, unlike other provisions that authorize an extension, subsection 92(4) does not specifically limit the number of days for which the extension can be made. Finally, we note that the words “as soon as practicable” are used in section 110, subsection 112(9), subsection 120(8) and section 131. However, the draft legislation provides no further guidance as to how quickly the actions described in those sections must be completed. In our analysis, under a “worst case scenario” the timelines and timeframes that currently appear in the proposed legislation could potentially require up to 800 days in order to complete the overall impact assessment process. However, as noted above, no timelines or timeframes have been provided for a number of important steps in the overall process. Taking all of these factors into account, and having regard to past environmental assessments, experienced industry observers have suggested that, under Bill C-25, three to five years could potentially be needed to complete the assessment of a major mining project in Nunavut. While a time period of this Page 4 of 9
magnitude will hopefully never be required, we submit that it demonstrates the need for further adjustment of the timelines and timeframes that the draft enactment currently contemplates. The mineral exploration and mining sector fully respects the need for the key institutions of public government, notably the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review Board, to have sufficient time to discharge their highly important responsibilities. At the same time, however, the competitive position of Nunavut will be impaired, particularly from a mineral exploration perspective, if prospective investors perceive that the regulatory process that Bill C- 25 ultimately implements is inefficient, onerous or unduly prolonged. We therefore recommend that the applicable provisions of the draft legislation should be carefully reconsidered in order to adjust the existing timelines and timeframes and incorporate new ones where required. In conclusion, we respectfully submit that the statutory environmental and socio-economic impact assessment process in Nunavut must be designed to respond to proposals for mineral exploration, mine development and mining operations in an efficient, transparent and timely manner. At the same time, however, the process must honour the principles, goals and objectives set out in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, while giving full effect to the federal government’s commitment to optimize regulatory regimes in Canada’s north. We appreciate the opportunity to bring these views to your attention, and would be pleased to provide any additional information. Representatives of our three associations remain available to meet with your departmental officials to discuss the issues outlined above or those summarized in the attached document. Yours sincerely, John Kearney Gordon Peeling Tony Andrews President President and CEO Executive Director NWTNCM MAC PDAC c.c. The Hon. Leona Aglukkak, Minister of Health and Regional Minister for Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon The Hon. Dennis G. Patterson, Senator for Nunavut Shelly Glover, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development The Hon. Peter Taptuna, Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut Patrick O’Neill, Director, Mineral Resources Directorate, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Stephen Traynor, Director, Resource Policy and Programs Directorate, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Jose Kusugak, Acting-President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Page 5 of 9
Page 1 and 2: November 15, 2010 BY E-MAIL AND BY
Page 3: We are not aware of any other juris
Page 7 and 8: 2. Section 104 - Conditions Recomme
Page 9: For reasons analogous to those outl

Lands & Regulation - Nunavut Planning - Industry Letter

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?