NUNAVUT - The chamber representing Nunavut's mineral exploration sector says the proposed federal act that will guide the operations of Nunavut's regulators doesn't do enough to address industry concerns about unnecessarily long timelines.

The NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines has expressed concerns about timelines laid out in the proposed Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, some of which are needlessly long and others missing, the chamber says. Here, Fred Novoligak assists Rescan Environmental Services with baseline environmental studies at Sabina Gold and Silver Corporation's Hackett River near Bathurst Inlet. - photo courtesy of Sabina Gold and Silver Corporation

But not all projects are cut from the same cloth, meaning some projects will still require longer consideration than others, says a staffer with the Nunavut Impact Review Board, Nunavut's chief regulator.

In a Nov. 16 letter to John Duncan, minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines – together with the Mining Association of Canada and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada – addressed several concerns about Bill C-25, the proposed Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, which was tabled in the House of Commons for first reading last May.

The act – the equivalent to the NWT's Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act – will provide an official set of guidelines for the Nunavut Planning Commission and the review board, which have previously operated according to procedures set out in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which came into effect in 1999.

"It's a piece of legislation that's long overdue," said Tom Hoefer, executive director of the mine chamber. But the chamber is concerned that some timelines for decisions related to mines, as currently drafted are too long and some are not even provided, he added.

"...Experienced industry observers have suggested that, under Bill C-25, three to five years could be potentially needed to complete the assessment of a major mining project in Nunavut," reads the letter. "While a time period of this magnitude will hopefully never be required, we submit that it demonstrates the need for further adjustment of the timelines that the draft currently contemplates."

While agreeing about the importance of timelines, Ryan Barry, director of technical services for NIRB, said the variety of projects the board is set up to assess makes it difficult to successfully adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to regulatory assessment.

"One of the reasons I would believe (some) sections don't have timelines is because they'd be very difficult ascribe them timelines given that what the board looks at is not just mineral projects. The board's domain is much broader than that," said Barry.

"The scale and complexity of projects is extremely variable, so trying to say that you have to nail down the scope within, say, 30 days – normally that would be fine. But if you're dealing with a larger project that has a lot more affected communities, you might not realistically be able to do that."

In one section of the act, ministers may take as much as 360 days to approve a project following a determination by a federal environmental assessment panel.

"Timelines are good because it's like everyone of us: if we don't do up lists with timelines, the job never gets done," said Hoefer.

Barry said those timelines, while undeniably long, should be put into perspective.

"That's pretty good compared to some other jurisdictions where they might wait several years before they hear back," he said.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.