127
Arctic Yearbook 2015
to the federal minister; 4) finally, section 14 will allow for exemption of projects that come up for
renewal—they can get approved without having any YESAB assessment. (Council of Yukon First
Nations 2014). These changes are seen as a breach of agreements by the First Nations:
The four problematic and substantive amendments […] give undue power to the federal
and Yukon governments and upset the tripartite balance inherent in YESAA as currently
written. In supporting these amendments, Canada and Yukon have put up roadblocks to
meaningful collaboration, and these actions have strained intergovernmental relations to
a degree rarely seen since the Final Agreements were signed (Joseph, R. 2015 [Chief
Roberta Joseph of Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation]).
Unlike the NWT, Yukon already had a single impact review board, so in this case, the issue was to
facilitate project approval by imposing tighter deadlines and tighter federal control over the process.
The changes were thus not as drastic but nonetheless they give to the federal government a tighter
control on the YESAB. The Yukon First Nations have threatened to take court action but at this time
have not filed a lawsuit.
In Nunavut (Bills S-6 and C-47)
In Nunavut too, there was no need to merge boards since there is only one land claim agreement. The
focus was entirely on shortening the approval timeline, and that goal was achieved with bills C-47 and
S-6.
Bill C-47 was the first federal bill concerning Nunavut to be part of the Action Plan to Improve Northern
Regulatory Regimes. It modified the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act in 2013. Bill S-6
amended the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The bills, among other
things, introduced timelines to speed up the review process. They did not cause many reactions. Bill
S-6 had support from both the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) and the Nunavut Impact and Review
Board (NIRB), since, for the Nunavut Water Board, “The Nunavut portion of Bill S-6 does not affect the land
use planning and project assessment aspects of the Nunavut regulatory system” (NWB 2015).
The only concern raised has been about the timelines for the water licensing process. The Nunavut
Water Board thinks that these provisions might not be “sufficiently flexible to account for the issues
beyond the NWB’s control that can—and regularly do—affect the Board’s ability to process
applications in compliance with the 9 month time limit proposed under s.55.2” (NWB 2015). The
NIRB shares this concern (NIRB 2015). According to the NIRB and the NWB, consultation was
adequate and their proposals were taken into consideration (NWB 2015; NIRB 2015). In fact, the only
real concerns in Nunavut have been about whether funding will be adequate for the board to review
a project in a timely manner. These boards are indeed federally funded, and there has been ongoing
dispute with the federal government over their inadequate funding. Following the lawsuit from
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI), which was amongst other things blaming the underfunding of these
boards, the federal government recently announced a substantial increase in funding for all Nunavut
boards (Nunatsiaq News 2015).
The reform of the regulatory system in Nunavut has thus been much less controversial than in the
NWT and Yukon : the process has had full support from NTI, the organization representing the
Rodon & Therrien