Environmental Law Year in Review 2020: Resource development in Nunavut - Indigenous and regulatory issues

Adam: Good day. My name is Adam Chamberlain. I'm a partner with Gowling WLG in the environmental and indigenous practices. I'm based in Toronto but I work across the country, in particular in the North quite a bit. We have today with us two speakers for the second of three Year in Review sessions. One was last week on a series of hot topics. The next one is next week and that is about climate change litigation and other related matters. But today we're going to talk about a few things to do with natural resource development in Nunavut. So today we have with us two speakers. One with us right now. That's Ryan Barry, the former Executive Director for the Nunavut Impact Review Board and our other speaker, Senator Dennis Patterson who is the Senator for Nunavut, will be joining us momentarily, we hope. We know he's trying to get online right now. I think we're going to get going and start the conversation and then when the Senator joins he will no doubt catch up. For those of you who know him you will know that he will not have any trouble catching along with the conversation. Introducing the discussion today, I want to just set the stage very briefly. Very briefly and really just say that we want to talk a little bit about the current state of the resource industry in Nunavut and a little bit about the implications of a trend that we're starting to see, or maybe not just starting to see, but are seeing towards the implementation of international initiatives. With this I'm referring to UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, as well as some ethical standards for the resource sector that are have been developed internationally and there's discussion about having them have more application in Canada in the resource sector. So we want to talk a little bit about challenges, some trends and some opportunities in this space and we can talk a little bit about the various things that relate to Nunavut as they relate to this trend. So, I'll just set the stage ever so quickly and just say that for those who don't know, and most of you probably do, that there's a bit of a trend in Canada to see the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People implemented, and that would include the implementation of something that's discussed in UNDRIP, which is called Free Prior and Informed Consent. This is the notion that has been developed internationally and now adopted, or in the process of being adopted in Canada, that indigenous people should have a greater say in what happens to them and what happens to their communities as it relates to the development of natural resources and other significant enterprises. This has come up a little bit recently. The Government of British Columbia has passed a piece of legislation saying that UNDRIP, all its legislation, all BC's legislation, needs to be considered in the context of UNDRIP and ensure that it's appropriately framed. The Canadian Government is in the process of developing legislation that would due a similar thing for Canadian legislation. So it's within this context that we wanted to just have these discussions. So perhaps without the Senator with us I think I'm going to ask Ryan to start with some opening comments and then we'll start the conversation. With any luck the Senator gets on the line with us soon. So, Ryan, why don't I ask you to perhaps introduce yourself briefly and then give us some opening thoughts. Thank you.

Ryan: Great. Thank you first of all, Adam, for inviting me and it's a real pleasure to be able to join you and have this discussion, particularly with Senator Patterson, who I'm sure will be joining us very shortly. For those of you on the meeting, the call, my name's Ryan Barry. Until very recently I was serving as the Executive Director of the Nunavut Impact Review Board. I spent the last 13 years living and working out of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, working the Board. First in a technical capacity and then for the last 9 years or so I was their Executive Director. So of course the Impact Review Board is the environmental assessment or impact assessment authority for Nunavut. So my work involved looking at proposed development across the Territory and that as well as monitoring developments that had proceeded to approval. I've since relocated to Prince Edward Island, more recently, and still actively following the development of Nunavut and the Territories as well. Again, a pleasure to be here, Adam, and I don't know if you wanted me to get into the opening thoughts on challenges facing the regulatory system.

Adam: Sure. Why don't we do that and that would be great. Thanks, Ryan.

Ryan: Absolutely. I think for me when I think about challenges facing resource development in Nunavut, they're very comparable to the jobs as faced in the other Northern Territories but a bit more distinct, or more pronounced, given the physical isolation of Nunavut. The primary challenges I've seen in my experience with assessing the large development projects has been increasingly of the challenge of these operators for raising capital, and the subsequent need for them to phase the development of their projects, and where that's creating some conflicts with regulatory regimes that weren't really designed to consider phase development. This is a problem that's not unique to Nunavut. It's being experienced across Canada in different regimes. But certainly I think it's a bit more pronounced in Nunavut and some of the challenges that make it more pronounced are the high cost of operating, the huge infrastructure deficit that we have in the Territory, the physical isolation, etcetera. I know in probably the last 5 years or so, maybe a little bit more, we've certainly seen more of a trend where even large mining companies have had more difficulty putting the large investments in right away. Building a mine from scratch. Really looking at phase development, getting approval in stages, for initial stages, later stages and then coming back frequently for amendments to approvals to implement as they go. To me, that for the regulatory system has been kind of a number one emerging challenge that really leads into many other areas, and is certainly more pronounced in Nunavut because of the infrastructure deficit. I think recognizing that all Nunavut communities have an infrastructure deficit. There's a lack of investment in roads, power infrastructure, internet bandwidth. Even things like hospitals, etcetera, and all of these in some way do impact upon mining development. Requiring mines to often have to invest more up front in infrastructure and this could be from things like deep sea ports or even community offloading facilities, all the way into ... supports for mental health programs, etcetera. I would start with that as kind of the largest challenge that I've seen facing resource development. There's other smaller challenges, important challenges, as well but to me that's the overarching one that we're dealing with.

Adam: Thanks, Ryan. First of all I'll also mention to the attendees that if you do have questions you can use the Q&A function to pose questions that I'll be able to see and we'll pass along if we've got time for them. So please feel free to do that. Ryan, I wonder, you're background is of course as a regulator. You were working regularly with the resource sector and the mining project proponents that, as you say, have had challenges with phasing and I have seen that myself as well. I guess one question that might be interesting to hear from you about is how have regulators been able to, or not been able to, or have been challenged by these changes? I mean for those of the attendees who don't know the Nunavut Impact Review Board has its offices in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut which is on the Northwest Passage and you fly typically through Yellowknife, Northwest Territories to get there, although you can come across the top, as some of us say. But it's not close to people so it's a challenge and I'm curious a little bit about how, or what, NIRB has been able to do to make itself able to manage this phasing, as you describe it, and other challenges that we are seeing that are phased. As your role as Executive Director did you feel you were able to make some strides in how you deal with that? You were in the position, or you were with NIRB for quite some time, so I presume you would have seen some development in this regard.

Ryan: Thanks, Adam. Certainly I believe sincerely that regulators operate from a stance of wanting to see development occur. To see things go ahead in the right way. Certainly that was always our attitude is that we're there to ensure that development goes ahead respecting the environment, respecting communities and that we make for better development projects in the end. I think for us the challenge that goes with phase development is really that our legislative tools being that the Nunavut Agreement, article 12, for us and for the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and enabling legislation. Neither one of those, when they were drafted, really contemplated phase development. It really wasn't an upfront issue at the time. So when we look at the legislated tools that we have to assess development there's several pathways that are in the Nunavut Agreement and NuPPAA, the legislation as we refer to it, and those are our options. We don't get to make up new ... options to deal with new and emerging situations. So we have to adapt those tools and use our discretion wherever we haven't to try to make things work. So I think the challenge for myself and my colleagues and for the board still is trying to use those tools and adapt them to these emerging situations. By doing that we look at where have flexibility to adapt information requirements, timelines, consultation requirements and the list goes on. I've always been a bit of a proponent for having regulators have a certain amount of discretion and I think a large part of our Board's success through the years have been the fact that we did, we were waiting quite a while for our Federal legislation to go into place, and that allowed us really to build our track record and to get ... ... use our discretion in a very positive way to make things work. I think that's where we've tried to ensure that things still move forward even if we didn't have express legislative pathway.

Adam: Thanks very much, Ryan. So, I'm going to tell you that I'm going to ask you a little bit more about the Free Prior and Formed Consent and UNDRIP a little bit in a minute, but I think we might have Senator Patterson on line, by telephone, so I'm going to ask him, first of all, if he's there and second of all, Senator, if you are there if you would like to make some opening comments. You missed it but Ryan gave his and we've just been chatting a little bit about some challenges and observations of his. I'll ask, Senator, I think you're there?

Senator: Yes. Good morning. Sorry to be late.

Adam: No trouble at all. Welcome and to everybody else on the line Senator Patterson is the Canadian Senator for Nunavut. He is an active advocate for the Territory and somebody who, if you work and live in Nunavut, you're very well aware of. Senator, why don't I ask you for some opening comments on these issues.

Senator: Okay, well, just to give you a little background. I was privileged to be a member of the NWT Assembly, 16 years until 1995, and in that time I was also involved as Minister of Aboriginal Rights and Constitutional Development in the negotiation of a number of land claim agreements in the North. The NWT was a third party but we were quite involved in those negotiations. Particularly the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. So I've been quite involved with that landmark land claim and also the effort to establish the Nunavut Territory which went hand and glove with the Nunavut land claim. So when we talk about Inuit involvement, Indigenous participation and development, I do want to emphasize that we are a poster child in Canada, I believe, in Nunavut in terms of reconciliation and the involvement of Inuit in government structures. The Inuit were represented actively in the development of the Nunavut Act, of course in the development of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement itself, they were a principal party with the Federal government, but they also have been intimately involved with any legislation relating to the regulatory framework in Nunavut, including being involved as a principal party in the development of the Nunavut Project and Planning Assessment Act, NuPPAA. So when we talk about indigenous involvement and development regulatory issues I think we have a very unique and probably the very best situation in terms of aboriginal reconciliation in the country. I want to also point out that, as you all probably know, ... Nunavut ... ... aboriginal groups in Canada and throughout the world most certainly envy, and that is in addition to being major land holders, surface and sub-surface, approximately 18%25 of the land mass of Nunavut which in itself is 20%25 of the land mass of Canada. The Inuit also have a guaranteed share of resource revenues under the land claim. Whether those resource revenues come from projects on or under Inuit owned land, or on Crown land in the rest of Nunavut, they have a guarantee royalty share, and of course, a much higher share because they take the Crown share on their own particularly sub-surface lands. Then they also have a guaranteed voice in the regulatory process to their participation in the regulatory bodies in Nunavut. The principal one being NIRB. That participation is guaranteed in the Land Claim Agreement which itself has protection under section 35 of the Constitution recognizing aboriginal rights. So the Land Claim Agreement provisions, extensive provisions, on the regulatory process is constitutionally protected and therefore the role of Inuit in providing advice to the appropriate Minister of the Crown is also constitutionally protected. We have a very strong regime and I know, Adam, we're going to be talking about the introduction of international and ethical standards into regulatory regimes in Canada, but I do want to say that I believe that the Inuit are far ahead of other indigenous groups in having a major voice in government, particularly respecting land and resources in their own homeland. So, I'll just stop there. Maybe I'll just say in closing that since I've been appointed this Senate 10 years ago I have taken a particular interest in resource development in Nunavut, because I see that as the way forward in an area with high unemployment and an area where the public sector is still the main driver of the economy, and I'd like to help work towards a more diverse economy that goes beyond public services and related services. Thank you.

Adam: Sorry. I was on mute. The joys of Zoom. Thanks very much, Senator Patterson. I'll come back to you in a second with a question a little bit more about the international initiatives that we discussed and UNDRIP and the ethical standards for resource sector in a second. But first I wanted to go to Ryan and just ask Ryan, perhaps you could tell, for some of the attendees who aren't familiar with it, I'm wondering if you could just talk a little bit about how NIRB facilitates the Inuit role in resource development. Certainly at least through that process and maybe one or two observations about that in the context of some of the Senator's comments. I'll leave it as a fairly open question but if you maybe talk a little bit about how you see NIRB as the regulator fulfilling some of that the functional of facilitating Inuit participation.

Ryan: Thanks, Adam, and thank you Senator for setting me up because really the start of my response would be going back to the Nunavut Agreement, and as it's been introduced, I'll just point to the fact that the objectives of the Nunavut Agreement, front and center, the central objectives, are increasing the role of Inuit in decision making for projects, for decisions affecting their lands, their resources, their traditional use and occupancy. I think, in my experience in working with the Nunavut Impact Review Board, that's always front and center. We had on our Board, we were very fortunate that our Board has always been predominately Inuit, a number of our board members were negotiators of the Nunavut Agreement through the years as well. So they're able to really impart what their vision was and what they were negotiating for and what they expect to see from regulatory processes such as NIRB. That means that when they were hearing evidence to the certain lens, so to speak, from community members wanting to ensure that their views are respected. I think for regulators like ... the Water Board, the Planning Commission, the Wildlife Board as well, the Management Board, we all have recognized, and I still use we because I'm still used to representing the Board, but I should say they all recognize that the processes that they administer are really a primary mechanism for the public to be involved in decision making. In the Review Boards case, for decisions about proposed development, and where and how development can occur and under what conditions it can occur, that's the primary mechanism. Those processes were certainly hard thought through the negotiation of the Nunavut Agreement. As it has been pointed out, the Boards have a legislative requirement to demonstrate consideration for public concern about the roles of development plans. Also for the potential effect of roles of development on community's traditional land use, etcetera. This is something that the Impact Review Board certainly has always been very careful about, ensuring it's documented, all the reference to have public engagement to physically go to communities to get feedback from communities about proposed development, proposed mitigation, whether that goes far enough. That has to be clearly documented and all the decisions and reports that come from the Board and then on the basis for whether or not projects get approved and under what terms and conditions they get approved. So, much of my previous job certainly focused on what means we can use to create those opportunities for people. How can we physically go to communities? How can we use new technologies like online resources to both disseminate information and to collect feedback, while not forgetting some of the more traditional methods, like physical in person meetings, Canadian radio shows, also respecting language requirements. Ensuring that everyone has fair access to documents in official languages of Canada as well as the official languages of Nunavut, so Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun. Those were really the core of the job, is also trying to make information accessible, often very technical information, packaged in a way that people can access and that they can give, again, their informed feedback about what they believe should occur for our proposed development.

Adam: Ryan, one of the things, thanks for those comments, one of the things that I think, to Southern eyes anyway, is quite striking in a NIRB process and other regulatory hearing processes in Nunavut, is the fact that Inuit are encouraged to be present and to participate in the hearings. So it's something I think after you've spent years, as you have working with the hearings and the related processes you might take for granted a bit, but I found quite striking that the amount to which or the number of times anyway Inuit are part of the hearing. Maybe you could talk just briefly a bit about that.

Ryan: Yeah, sure, I'll do that really quickly. I think, again, for the Impact Review Boards processes, in particular, a really important part of formal public hearing process is something that is called Community Roundtable Portion, where representatives from potentially impacted communities are invited. Their travel is paid for and they sit at the table and provide their feedback directly to the Board and have time carved out of the agenda to do so. I know for the Board members, hearing directly from community members is extremely important, and also what's often shared is not just concerns about a project end. Their concerns, which are very important, but often their traditional knowledge, or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, about how they use the land, the area in question, how its been used by their ancestors and how they wanted to see it available for use by their children or their grandchildren. You really only get that part through the stories that are shared at Canadian roundtables and through the participation of community members in the public hearing processes. I am familiar with how sometimes the processes and impact assessments in South of 60, I think we've always been fortunate that we're able to have a slightly more flexible process. We rely on the Inuit tradition or oral communication and the way that that enriches the decision making, I would hope would be evident through the decisions that the reports of the Board produces. You'll see it clearly documented, direct quotes, attributions to community members and how that's influenced the decision making, and showing the importance of different aspects of the assessment.

Adam: Thanks very much, Ryan. I will, as I say, I would agree that it is different than South of 60 and interestingly Senator Patterson's already commented on the difference between Nunavut regulatory process and processes elsewhere in Canada and I don't entirely disagree, Senator, with you characterization of Nunavut of the poster child for Inuit participation or indigenous participation. But what I thought I'd turn the conversation to now, a little bit, is the question about what one might call the advent of UNDRIP. But certainly we're now moving towards a situation where an international initiative, in the form of UNDRIP and the concept of Free Prior and Informed Consent, how it's going to somehow factor into the Canadian legal landscape and that will look different in BC where we already, as I said before, have seen that process start through legislation. We understand that the Government of Canada is seeking to introduce legislation based on what we saw most recently in a private member's Bill about the same topics last year, or early this year I guess it was, so, Senator, perhaps I could just turn to you and ask whether you have any particular views about the apparent desire of the Canadian government to take on initiatives like UNDRIP and to make them part, somehow, of Canadian law. I say this knowing that we don't really know what this is going to look like yet. So, I'm not trying to pin you down. I'm just interested in your general comments about how these two concepts, that is Canadian law and indigenous international concepts overlap.

Senator: Okay sure, Adam, thank you. I'm aware of the Canadian active participation in developing the 2015 UN sustainable development goals and the support for environmental, social and government standards, and perhaps more recently, a debate about whether these standards should include indigenous participation. I guess the first thing I would say is, reckoning back to what I said at the opening, is that not only do we have a regime in Nunavut, perhaps it's out of respect for the 85%25 Inuit majority in Nunavut, but it is undoubtedly a model regime for involvement of indigenous people which was co-developed by indigenous people with the Inuit, but I want to emphasize again that the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement legislation is not just another Bill, another statute in Canada, it is a statute that has constitutional protection by virtue of section 35. I think it's a very strong and solid foundation, a detailed foundation, for Inuit participation in the regulatory process in Nunavut. When you look at what I think most reasonable people would say is that at least unclear, if not generalistic terms, like FPIC, Free Prior and Informed Consent. When you compare those few words with the detailed provisions of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, and legislation like the Nunavut Project Planning and Assessment Act, we have a well defined regime with now quite a body of precedent over the years since the claim was finalized in 1993. I guess what I'm hopeful, frankly, is that in the initiatives that Canada takes to hitch our wagon to international standards and international work that is being done in this area, must respect that we've already, and by the way the Land Claim Agreement took, conservatively, 20 years to negotiate, it painstakingly developed in full collaboration with indigenous people, so I wouldn't want to ever see, however notorious they might seem and however they might be appropriated in other regions of the country, I wouldn't want to see those international standards displace what has been a hard won and very carefully evolving regulatory regime in Nunavut. Which seems to have, I would say, the respect of governments who appoint members to the regulatory boards but also to industry proponents who work very hard to understand and respect their obligations to enter into impact and benefit agreements and provide incentives to employment and business opportunities. Don't let the international standards displace what we've developed in Nunavut, in particular, and secondly, I think what we've learned in Nunavut is that successful development of these kinds of standards must be meaningfully co-developed. Rather than handed as a fait accompli, for example indigenous stakeholders, that they be involved in the ground work of developing these standards. Now the Federal Government had committed to co-developing the UNDRIP legislation that they've committed to introducing to Parliament as recently as in the throne speech of last month, and I'm not sure really how that's going, but I was pleased to see that commitment to have indigenous organizations being involved in the co-development of that legislation and I think the same applies for international standards that may help guide us in our regulatory regimes, broadly, in Canada.

Adam: Thanks, Senator. I'm going to just ask a variation on the question or perhaps just a small additional piece about this. See what your comments are. I know that a few years ago when there was an announcement by, at the time then President Obama which seems like a lifetime or two ago now and our Prime Minister, there was an announcement about a moratorium on off-shore oil and gas activity in the Arctic. There were statements made by, I think, all three Territorial Premiers to the effect that they had concerns that this was taking decision making power away from Northerners and complaining that that was inappropriate. I'm curious, do you think that taking potential international standards, like the ethical ones we just discussed or the FPIC requirements under UNDRIP, do you think that that could be seen as taking away decision making from Northern decision makers as well? Senator, I'll ask you.

Senator: Well that's why I'm saying that since Canada is committed to lining up with those kinds of international standards, and of course that applies to also protected areas which is an issue of great concern and interest to Territorial Governments, it has to be done in a meaningful co-development manner. That did not happen with the Artic oil and gas moratorium. It was firmly condemned by Territorial Governments and indigenous organizations in the North, and I like to think there might have been some lessons learned from that, because subsequently the Federal Government has involved the Inuit in consultations with the NWT in developing plans for the off-shore in the Beaufort, and the Federal Government also supported the NIRB to do a very broad ranging strategic environment assessment of the same issues with respect to the off-shore in the Eastern Arctic. Yes, we must not do these things top down even though they might start at the UN and internationally. The Federal Government has to do its homework within its own country if it's going to have credibility and acceptance of these standards.

Adam: Thanks very much, Senator. Maybe I'll turn to you Ryan and just ask the question about the UNDRIP and FPIC. The way it's being presented, and I've heard others actually comment on this and suggest that perhaps that UNDRIP or FPIC as it is understood anyway now, is something that might be redundant in the context of several regulatory regimes in the North, in particular in Nunavut. I'm curious what you might comment about that.

Ryan: I'll have to preface my comments with saying that I'm one of the few people on the call that's not a lawyer. So I'll start from there, as an impact assessment practitioner I guess, I'm answering. I agree with a lot of what the Senator just shared. I think, for me, when I'm asked this question I look at the integrated system, the resource management system that was established through the Nunavut Agreement, and I can't help but recognize it. I think it was ahead of its time in many ways as it kind of put in place the tools that are necessary, I think, to achieve the sort of self-determination that is desired or the objective behind some of these international initiatives. It seems to me where the systems are in place that were developed with the Nunavut Agreement, where they are respected and where they are followed, they can achieve those same answers and objectives. I would focus more on, from my ... the world, how what is meaningful engagement? What does that look like and how does that evolve through time? If you go back 20 years ago about what regulators and what other groups ... has made meaningful engagement through these regulatory processes. It's a lot different now and that evolves naturally with new technologies and new ways to connect with communities and to design processes a little bit organically. But for me when I'm thinking about this question of Free Prior and Informed Consent, I do kind of go down the same road as the Senator in thinking of how can that be achieved through the existing tools that we have, the legislative tools, respecting the Nunavut Agreement, the other land claims agreements as well. To me it's very topical. We have, I think in Nunavut right now, one of the members of the legislative assembly was raising questions about the revisiting the government's uranium policy and really looking at what could be the role of having community public sites to revisit whether or not uranium exploration and development should be allowed in the Territory. I think that was something that as our Board, the Impact Review Board, was having to assess a uranium mining project at the time when they worked these uranium policies in place and people were raising questions about our community is Inuit community should be able to have public sites and decide for ourselves whether or not we want to see uranium development. But then the talks kind of break down a bit when you talk about what would that look like? How would each community be involved and respect that? Are people recognizing that is the system we have in place through this integrated resource management system where we have Boards that are tasked with these big overarching questions, land use planning decisions about what types of elements should be allowed to occur, where and under what conditions, before projects can even be proposed. To me, I bring it back it to if land use plans can be put into place and be revisited every now and again to ensure that they're current, and then they address some of these bigger ticket items as well.

Adam: Thanks, Ryan. I'm just going to ask you a follow up question. Sort of along these lines and this is one question that you could answer over several hours, if you had the time, and you don't. So I'll ask you for some initial thoughts. I'm just going to take us back to UNDRIP and FPIC and this question of implementing, and I know we don't know what the law requires, but if we were to assume for a second that it created some sort of different requirement that is currently in the legislation, and I'm speaking of NuPPAA, the legislation that created and guides, NIRB, but how might NIRB and other IPGs help to implement these standards? Do you think that that's something that they are equipped to do? I know it's hard to answer the question based on the fact that we don't know what it really looks like, but assuming that there is something additional that they have to do, do you think they're in a position to do that and work with the stakeholders, with whom they work already, to do that?

Ryan: Short answer is yes. Realistically the Boards are often having to look at implications of Federal legislation. It's something that is a reality. The government makes changes to the Fisheries Act that has trickle down implications for the regulatory system, as just one example. To me it works the same way with the government looking at international agreements. Certainly we investigated this a little bit, strategic environmental assessment, as the Senator referenced as well. I think that there is a place for the regulatory boards in Nunavut, and the other Territories, to consider what role do they play in helping to implement some of these Federal government level agreements to respect international standards, etcetera, we, still I'm using the royal we, but the impact of ... when I was working for the Board, certainly we get asked to ensure that our impact statement guidelines set out some of the same information requirements that would be in different international agreements. To me, it's nothing new. It's always a challenge that regulatory boards are facing is trying to come up with creative ways that respect the known legislation and respects the emerging international agreements and legislation.

Adam: Thanks very much for that, Ryan. I'm going to turn to you now, Senator Patterson, and ask you sort of a similar question and that is, how do you think government could assist this? I'm assuming for the sake of this discussion that legislation does get passed implementing UNDRIP in Canada and that it does have some effect in Nunavut. How do you think that government, I'm thinking Federally, principally right now, might better support resource development in Nunavut through this initiative?

Senator: Okay, well first of all it's important to note, I think, that while the regulatory boards like NIRB are quasi-judicial independent bodies they do depend on the Federal government to provide financial support to allow them to carry on their work. So they are reliant on the government to do their work and to get their funding. There have been some challenges with the operation of boards and such simple matters as timely appointment of board members when vacancies occurred. It's an Order in Council process that has often put boards precariously close to losing quorum. But the other thing is that I think there should be more support for these regulatory boards to train and orient board members. I know the NIRB has set up some processes to help board members prepare for those very important responsibilities, but I don't think that has happened across the other regulatory boards and I believe there could be more than, on the part of government, to make sure that board members are adequately equipped to deal with these complex issues including, as you say, dealing with international standards to which Canada might subscribe. The other point I'd like to make about government support is that we are seeing, I think in the evolution of the regulatory regime in Nunavut, we're seeing that even the organizations, regionally and Territorial, that's Nunavut Inuktitut territorially and the three regional associations, are playing a very active role in the regulatory process and in managing their lands and their environment. But increasingly it seems to me that hunters and trappers organizations, in particular, which are community organizations that are basically run by volunteers on pretty well threadbare budgets, they are having an increasing role in blending traditional knowledge with science, which is going on in every regulatory hearing, and of course with input into environmental matters around management of renewable resources like climate change, etcetera, and I think if the Federal Government truly values indigenous input, and I'm sure that is true, then organizations like hunters and trappers organizations should be able to access participant funding through the regulatory boards to do their work. Because right now they're relying on outside resources, and I don't mean to really criticize the World Wildlife Fund or Ecojustice, but they're relying on outside, dare I say, Southern based resources, Oceans North is another one, to help them participate in these regulatory hearings and I think they shouldn't have to rely on outside sources. They should be able to have their own resources so that they can more independently participate in these sessions. The other big pull, of course, in the North on the part of the Federal Government, is the oft observed huge deficiency in infrastructure in Nunavut, and I don't want to belabour that, but if we had more Federal support for basic infrastructure like airports, roads and ports, that would immensely aid the climate for investment and orderly development in Nunavut. Thank you.

Adam: Thanks very much, Senator Patterson, thanks very much. We only have a few minutes left so I'm just looking, we had a few questions come in, and I'm just going to look at a couple of them and ask one or two things. Just see if we can entertain a few and I apologize because we won't get to all of the questions. I'm going to touch on a couple of comments that you've both been talking a little bit about and that is the application of IQ, or traditional knowledge. For those who don't have experience in Nunavut, IQ is the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, which I'm badly pronouncing by the way so I'm going to stick with IQ, but the fact that it's used regularly and is required to be contemplated in the regulatory process. So one question that I'm going to paraphrase slightly is, that as Nunavut's regulatory environment continues to develop and there's more familiarity with IQ, how do you, and I'll start with Ryan, see the science/IQ dynamic (I think that's a good way of referring to it actually, this interaction between quote/unquote modern science and IQ) that dynamic evolving and where is the future for that and do we have the right balance between IQ and modern science and is that part of, perhaps, reconciliation? A few different ideas there but, Ryan, maybe you could give us a few thoughts on it.

Ryan: Sure. I think that's a big question and maybe I'll unpack it from the last of it. Is that part of reconciliation? I would think so and I think what you'll find across many Canadian universities, in particular, is that is an active part of their own plans to try to further reconciliation is to look at when they're conducting studies how they can do it in a way that is more respectful of traditional and local knowledge holders and having them directly involved in designing and implementing studies. I think for regulatory processes such as the Impact Review Boards, there's always been a focus on ... the terminology often ... used to be traditionally ... or traditional knowledge more frequently now Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is used to refer to the Inuit way of knowing things that have always been known. I think initially when people are looking at that they were believing that there was a conflict between science and IQ and saying how do you reconcile what you're hearing from science versus what you're hearing from IQ. Which in reality, at least in our processes, was not usually the case. Usually you're hearing people speaking about things from two different perspectives and two different knowledge sources. Very often they're saying the same thing. If we're talking about something like impacts of a role's development to Caribou, it's one thing to hear from a very experienced biologist that's gone up and done studies and said, "We realize the Caribou typically migrate this way. This is why we're recommending we design the project to minimize effects.", and then you hear from a local knowledge holder that says, "Look. I harvest those hamels. They're incredibly important to my livelihood and my culture and I think I understand them pretty well and I can tell you that what you're designing there, I don't think it will work. And here's why I don't think it will work." You try to find the middle ground of what in fact will work while respecting those sources of knowledge. I do think that we've been trying to, through the Impact Review Board process, they've been trying to elevate the respect for Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit by interweaving it through all impact assessment guidelines and guidance and the questions that are asked. I think we're seeing researchers have more respect for the need to consider and to have their research efforts guided by local knowledge in a more meaningful way. So that's how I see things evolving, optimistically, and I do like to think that when we're talking about adaptive management approaches too, the Senator referenced hunters and trappers organizations in Nunavut, and in my view those are really your on the ground knowledge holders. Which resources of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, who in an adaptive management approach can say, "Look, we're starting to see effects of development. We need to implement better mitigation and to have that in more real time as well as projects do come up."

Adam: Thanks very much, Ryan. Senator, we only have a minute or two left, so I'm just going to ask you if you have anything you'd like to add to that before I turn to you both and ask for some closing thoughts.

Senator: I'd just to like to reiterate what Ryan said that it's important that in government interventions and proponent submissions in the regulatory process to be aware and address traditional knowledge. One way of doing this is to hire Inuit advisors and also to understand that the Inuit language is the carrier of traditional values so every meeting and every process, and I think the regulatory boards do it to a fault, should be very user friendly to the unilingual participants, who are the Elders who are the carriers of that knowledge. Thank you.

Adam: Thank you, Senator. So I'll turn to Ryan for your brief wrap up, if you will.

Ryan: Thanks, Adam. I'll be very brief. I think the focus of this discussion was on challenges to Nunavut's regulatory system and I hope we've touched on a lot of those. I think the parting shot for me would be, the things that could go a long way towards improving the current state of affairs, would be seeing more approved land use plans in place that are there to guide them. Getting land use plans in place that have the buy in from industry as well as local communities. It's a huge task but that's something that would really go a long way towards addressing some of the current challenges as well.

Adam: Thank you, Ryan. Maybe next time we can talk about the land use plans exclusively. There's always lots of ... out there. Senator Patterson, perhaps you could give us your brief closing comments. Would be super.

Senator: Thank you very much, Adam. I believe that we have spoken about the regulatory regime in Nunavut and no doubt Ryan and I are biased. But I think we have spoken about it with pride and as a model for the rest of Canada, and maybe even other parts of the world, for genuine efforts to achieve reconciliation with the Inuit who were first Canadians in the North as ... used to say but also Canadians first. So there's lots of positive lessons to be learned about how things have evolved in Nunavut. Ryan did touch on one big feeling, to be frank, and that is that despite massive efforts and expenditures we're still struggling with developing land use plans in Nunavut. I do want to say that while the independence of the Nunavut planning commission should be always respected it is to me unfortunate that the Federal government, which has funded the planning commission generously, I believe, over the years has perhaps stood by helpless in the face of no deliverables, no credible deliverables, from the planning commission and that's a hole in what was supposed to be an integrated regime that we shouldn't overlook. I hope it can be fixed and addressed because it's as Ryan said. I just want to say in closing then, Adam, that I do believe the initiatives, to bring in international standards and benefit from work that's been developed internationally, while they are important they must be done in a way which respects good work that has been done at least in our region of Canada in setting up a framework that does respect indigenous rights holders. I frankly hope that any legislation that has developed in Canada, in respect to these subjects, will respect that the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement and the Nunavut Act should have primacy before other standards that have been developed in other places. So I do believe that we have an investment climate in Nunavut that is welcoming because the Inuit majority have a share in the revenues and a real stake in finding ways of win/win ways of mitigating impacts and making projects work. But it needs support and acceptance by governments and by proponents. I hope our discussion today has been helpful to those of you who have participated and listened intently, thank you. I'll also just say that I am always open to providing advice to folks who may want to better understand the Nunavut regulatory regime and how to successfully interface with the regulatory boards and the communities in Nunavut so we can continue to develop our huge renewable, and for that matter, non-renewable natural resource potential. Thank you.

Adam: Thank you very much, Senator, I'm going to take this very quick chance to say thank you to the two of you for agreeing to fit us into your very busy schedules and I know you both have lots on the go and we really appreciate you taking the time to join us today and to discuss this. I'm pleased that we've had good attendance and attendance from across the country and across the North. I can tell you that just seeing some of the names of people who sent in some questions and such. I do apologize that we couldn't get to more. I look forward to having another session not a lot difference than this in the not too distant future where we can talk about issues of importance to Northerners again, in the context of environmental and resources. So thank you all. Have a good day and I will ask the technical people to end the call now. Thank you very much.