Clarity, Certainty, and Consistency in Land and Water Board Processes
1 / 23

presented by: Shannon Ward, Manager Policy Planning and Communications, MVLWB - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Clarity, Certainty, and Consistency in Land and Water Board Processes : Public Engagement and Consultation. presented by: Shannon Ward, Manager Policy Planning and Communications, MVLWB Mark Cliffe-Phillips, Executive Director, WLWB.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' presented by: Shannon Ward, Manager Policy Planning and Communications, MVLWB' - kaelem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Clarity, Certainty, and Consistency in Land and Water Board Processes: Public Engagement and Consultation

presented by: Shannon Ward, Manager Policy Planning and Communications, MVLWB

Mark Cliffe-Phillips, Executive Director, WLWB

MVRB Consultation Workshop, February 11th, 2011

Presentation Outline Processes

  • The Past, the Future and In the Meantime: Evolving Practices with respect to managing s.35 Assertions at the MVLWB (Shannon)

  • Proposed Public Engagement and Consultation Policy Framework (Mark)

  • Proposed Guideline Approach (Mark)

Managing S.35 Assertions: ProcessesThe Future

  • Land claims settled, land use planning, modernized mining law, etc, etc. !!!!!

  • Clear, consistent and modernized public engagement guidelines

  • NWT-Region specific federal policy on Crown Consultation which clarifies roles and responsibilities between the Crown and Administrative Tribunals in this area.

Managing S.35 Assertions: ProcessesThe Past

  • In the beginning (2000 – 2005)

    • Alleged infringements dealt with mainly via “Public Concern” determination.

  • The “Interim Approach” (2006-2010)

    • S.35 Assertions become more frequent

    • Creation of CSU and interim approach - “the hand off”

    • Joint key messages between INAC and MVLWB

    • Roles of Tribunals uncertain – duty to consult or assessing adequacy “in question”

    • WG1 on Public Engagement and Consultation formed in 2008

    • Cultures of Operational Practice begin to shift (2010)

      • Anticipating North Arrow and Carrier Rulings

Managing S.35 Assertions: ProcessesIn the Meantime……..

  • Recent rulings on the role of administrative tribunals and the duty to consult, some of it helpful (Carrier), some not as much (N.Arrow)

  • Changing culture of regulatory practice at the MVLWB:

    • North Arrow (2) – summer 2010

    • TNR Gold – summer 2010

    • Seabridge - current

  • Changing federal landscape on Crown Consultation

    • Role of the CSU vs. NPMO/CanNor

  • MVLWB WG1 Public Engagement and Consultation Policy and Guidelines nearing 1st internal draft.

  • Managing S.35 Assertions: ProcessesIn the Meantime……..

    • Implement a procedural framework post north arrow / carrier

    • Coherent policy and procedure for all phases of process (screenings – EA – issuance).

    • Also need to determine the appropriate strategy for communicating this to key clients

    The six working groups
    The Six Working Groups Processes

    • Public Engagement and Consultation

    • Plan Review Process and Guideline

    • Water/Effluent Quality

    • Terms and Conditions

    • Data-Resource Sharing

    • Application Processes

    Purpose of PECWG Processes

    • To research and identify the role of the boards with regard to public engagement and consultation. In cooperation and coordination with relevant agencies and communities, the WG will develop consistent and clear public engagement and consultation policies and guidelines for the Mackenzie Valley as required by the Board review process.

    Guiding Principles Processes

    • Shared Responsibility

    • Building Proactive and Long-Term Relationships

    • Informed Participation

    • Transparency, respect, honesty

    • Inclusiveness

    • Reasonableness

    Engagement and Consultation Effort Processes

    • Overall Engagement and Consultation Effort based on:

      • Community Expectation

      • Scope of Project

      • Temporal and spatial characteristics

      • Stage of Development

      • Legal Requirements (Statute)

      • Legal Precedent (Jurisprudence)

      • What is reasonable

    Shared consultation responsibility
    Shared Consultation Responsibility Processes


    Engaged Organization (e.g. Aboriginal org / govt)

    Land and Water Boards


    Stages of development
    Stages of Development Processes

    Consultation / Engagement Effort



    Post Closure

    Pre Application

    Licence Renewal

    Closure Planning

    Regulatory Process

    Policy and Guideline Framework Processes

    • MVRMA, settled land claim agreements, interim measures

    • Mandates, roles and responsibilities

    • Case Law

    • Regulatory Best practices

    • Industry Guidelines

    Draft Policy Processes

    • Purpose

    • Objectives

    • Application

    • Requirements for Public Engagement

    • Requirements for Consultation

    Board Consultation Processes

    • Legal framework

    • Board approach

      • Distributing submissions

      • Conduct of Public Hearings

      • Drafting Water Licences and land use permits

      • Post-issuance permit and licence management

      • Guideline and Policy development

    Public ProcessesEngagement

    • What is Public Engagement?

    • Pre-submission Engagement

    • Life of Project Engagement

    Requirements for Public Engagement Processes

    • Pre-submission

      • The Boards’ minimum expectations must be met before an application is deemed complete.

      • Expectation approach will be based on the type and level of application to Board.

      • Minimum expectations will be outlined in new Public Engagement Guidelines.

      • Guidelines will also outline what is expected in an engagement record.

    Requirements for Public Engagement Processes

    • Life of Project

      • For larger projects, a life of project “Public Engagement Plan” will be required.

      • PEP expectations will be outlined in the guideline.

      • Living document, but a commitment to ongoing engagement through life of a project.

    Public Engagement Plan Processes

    • When should an organization be engaged (i.e. Triggers)?

    • Who should be engaged?

    • What is the purpose of the engagement?

    • How much time is required for the engagement activity?

    • What level of engagement is required?

    • When is engagement not required?

    • Details on any support that may be needed to be provided to the engaged organization to ensure adequate engagement is being conducted?

    •  Describe agreed upon process for documenting and conducting engagement.

    Public Engagement Guidelines Processes

    • Engagement Guidelines will use a “best practices” approach.

    • Industry Standards

    • Exemptions

    Next Steps Processes

    • Release draft documents for stakeholder review

    • Revise drafts based on public review

    • Finalize and implement

    Www mvlwb ca
    WWW.MVLWB.CA Processes

    • Separate tabs for each Board

    • Hosted by MVLWB

    • Online ledger and registry

    • Application Lists and Maps

    • Shared Calendar and Contacts

    Thank you questions
    Thank You! ProcessesQuestions?