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 • 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: The 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: The 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: In 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: In 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 • Public Engagement and Consultation • Plan Review Process and Guideline • Water/Effluent Quality • Terms and Conditions • Data-Resource Sharing • Application Processes
Purpose of PECWG • 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 • Shared Responsibility • Building Proactive and Long-Term Relationships • Informed Participation • Transparency, respect, honesty • Inclusiveness • Reasonableness
Engagement and Consultation Effort • 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 Proponent Engaged Organization (e.g. Aboriginal org / govt) Land and Water Boards Crown
Stages of Development Consultation / Engagement Effort Closure Operations Post Closure Pre Application Licence Renewal Closure Planning Regulatory Process
Policy and Guideline Framework • MVRMA, settled land claim agreements, interim measures • Mandates, roles and responsibilities • Case Law • Regulatory Best practices • Industry Guidelines
Draft Policy • Purpose • Objectives • Application • Requirements for Public Engagement • Requirements for Consultation
Board Consultation • 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 Engagement • What is Public Engagement? • Pre-submission Engagement • Life of Project Engagement
Requirements for Public Engagement • 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 • 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 • 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 • Engagement Guidelines will use a “best practices” approach. • Industry Standards • Exemptions
Next Steps • Release draft documents for stakeholder review • Revise drafts based on public review • Finalize and implement
WWW.MVLWB.CA • Separate tabs for each Board • Hosted by MVLWB • Online ledger and registry • Application Lists and Maps • Shared Calendar and Contacts