Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 43 - Evidence - April 30, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 47, An Act to to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 5:10 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld; I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate and I am chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room, and viewers all across the country who are watching on television.
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, and I will begin with my deputy chair to my right, Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger, Alberta.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut, and I would like to welcome our guests from Nunavut.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Lang: Dan Lang, Yukon.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston, Northwest Territories, and I would like to welcome Peter Vician in Yellowknife.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
The Chair: I would like to introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
Bill C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, was referred to our committee on April 16 of this year.
Honourable senators, last Tuesday you will recall we had the officials from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada who gave us an overview of the legislation. Today, in the first portion of our meeting, it is my pleasure to welcome from the Government of Nunavut, the Honourable Peter Taptuna, MLA, Minister of Economic Development and Transportation; Robert Long, Deputy Minister, Department of Economic Development and Transportation; and William Mackay, Director, Intergovernmental Relations. By video conference from Yellowknife, from the Government of the Northwest Territories, we have Peter Vician, Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today and taking time from your busy schedules. We will proceed by inviting each group to present short opening remarks, and then we will have questions and answers.
Mr. Minister and officials, I invite you to make your presentation, sir.
Hon. Peter Taptuna, MLA, Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. My name is Peter Taptuna, and I am the deputy premier, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation and Minister responsible for Mines for the Government of Nunavut.
On behalf of Premier Aariak, I would like to thank the committee for the invitation extended to the premier to appear before you. Premier Aariak sends her regrets, and I am appearing on her behalf.
I am here to speak in support of Part 1 of Bill C-47, the Nunavut planning and project assessment act.
As Premier Aariak has noted, this bill marks an important milestone in creating an effective regulatory regime for the coordinated management of resource development between Inuit and the Government of Nunavut. This bill fulfills a major commitment that Canada made under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In 1993, Inuit in Nunavut and Canada signed the largest land claims agreement in the country. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires that new federal legislation be created to set forth the powers and functions of the resource management boards created under this agreement, in this case, the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission.
These two boards play an essential role in land and resource management in Nunavut. They are composed of members appointed or nominated by Inuit as well as the territorial and federal governments. They have been in operation since 1996 under the authority and powers granted to them under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.
Between 2002 and late 2009, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. worked together to complete federal legislation that would set out a clear role for the boards created under this agreement.
The Nunavut Planning Commission and Nunavut Impact Review Board also participated in that work.
I would like to acknowledge the hard work that officials from the Government of Nunavut, the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the two boards have put into the development of this bill.
The working group was guided by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as well as the experience of drafting similar legislation in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The working group also benefited from the work the boards, Inuit and government have been doing since 1996.
Mr. Chair, the Government of Nunavut believes that this bill will make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut. The Nunavut sections of this bill will make the work of the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission stronger by backing it up with solid federal legislation. This will be accomplished by creating a clear regulatory process with predictable timelines and integrating the process of approving project proposals by the Nunavut Planning Commission and Nunavut Impact Review Board.
This bill establishes a one-window approach for project proponents. This one-window approach will be accomplished by setting the Nunavut Planning Commission as the entry point for all project approvals. Stakeholder involvement will also be improved by establishing a three-party land use plan approval process by Inuit, Canada and the Government of Nunavut.
A clarified role of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in Nunavut will be accomplished by eliminating the overlapping jurisdiction that causes confusion and delay elsewhere in Canada. The bill will make clear which projects are subject to assessment. It will set out a schedule. All government authorizations must comply with the requirements of the bill before being finalized.
It enforces land use plans and project certifications on Inuit-owned lands, Crown lands and commissioner's lands. It includes specific direction to regulators to include in their permits the applicable terms and conditions of land use plans and project assessment certificates. Offence provisions are set out in the bill in relation to land use plans and project certificates.
Unilingual Inuktitut-speaking Nunavummiut will benefit as this bill requires public hearings to be conducted in Inuktitut if requested by a member, proponent or intervener.
Specific timelines are established in the bill for regulator and minister decisions. This will bring certainty and predictability to Nunavummiut, industry and other stakeholders. As the committee can see, this is an important piece of legislation for the North and will contribute to the economic development of Nunavut.
As members of this committee may know, the Government of Nunavut is currently engaged in devolution discussions to transfer jurisdiction over lands and resources from the federal government to the Government of Nunavut. A devolution agreement has been concluded with the Yukon, and an agreement in principle has been reached with the Northwest Territories. An effective regulatory system, which Bill C-47 will create, is a key component of devolution.
The Nunavut planning and project assessment act will assist in creating a transparent and effective regulatory system in Nunavut. It will allow the Government of Nunavut to take on the management of lands and resources in a seamless way without disrupting resource development in Nunavut.
This legislation is an important achievement by the federal and territorial governments and Inuit to strengthen Nunavut's institutions and enable Nunavummiut to advance along the path towards greater self-reliance.
Mr. Chair, those are all I have in terms of opening remarks. I thank the committee members for their time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. We will now go to Peter Vician, Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Peter Vician, Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Government of the Northwest Territories: Thank you, senator; it is a pleasure to appear before this committee again. Senator Sibbeston, it is good to see you again. Of course, it is always good to see our NWT senator working hard in Ottawa, as well as Senator Patterson and Senator Lang. It is good to see Canada's North well represented in this discussion. I extend greetings from Minister David Ramsay, who is unable to join us today, but I am conveying the remarks on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Senators, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Government of the Northwest Territories on Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Bill, more specifically Part 2, the proposed Northwest Territories surface rights board act. We are pleased to see this has advanced to this stage through the House of Commons and to the Senate committee. The GNWT shares the Government of Canada's objective of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Northwest Territories regulatory system. We know how important it is to have a regulatory system that ensures development is sustainable and protects the environment, while still supporting economic development by providing certainty to industry.
The GNWT listed the need for this legislation in its approach to regulatory improvement in the NWT in 2009, as did the Government of Canada as part of its action plan for improving the northern regulatory regime.
Not only is this a fulfillment of our land claim agreement obligation, but the development sector sees this as a means to facilitate better relationships with other land users. As a signatory to the comprehensive land claims agreements in the Northwest Territories, the GNWT also wants to ensure the legislation honours the agreements, and we are confident that this has been achieved.
The GNWT was consulted throughout the development of the legislation and supports the bill before you today. We think it is a step forward for sustainable development in the Northwest Territories.
While a focus has been placed on surface settlement lands, or the lands owned by Aboriginal groups throughout the comprehensive land claims agreements, the dispute resolution process is also available for other land owners and occupants such as lease holders on Crown lands. The dispute resolution processes for land access and compensation already exist in some form with varying degrees of clarity. An interim arbitration mechanism was clearly set out in the land claims agreements for settlement lands until such time that legislation could be enacted. Surface rights holders for other private or occupied lands are addressed often in obscure ways in different federal regulations, and it often requires civil litigation.
What is new is that there is a single board to hear disputes as a last resort and, more important, there are procedures that offer certainty and consistency for industry and landowners and occupants alike.
The GNWT has a further or invested interest in the surface rights legislation. We have completed negotiations of a consensus draft final agreement with the Government of Canada for the transfer of lands and resources in the Northwest Territories and anticipate a transfer date of April 1, 2014, following signing of the final agreement. Under the consensus draft, the authorities for the proposed NWT surface rights board act will transfer to the GNWT. The GNWT has committed to initially mirroring federal legislation to ensure a smooth transition. Therefore, the bill before you must meet our needs and interests. We are of the opinion that this has been accomplished.
We support the federal government's efforts in the development of the legislation and look forward to the support of this committee and the enactment of the legislation so that our regulatory system can be more effective and efficient and foster sustainable economic development for the benefit of all residents.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Vician. We are fortunate on this committee to have two previous premiers in our midst as senators, so I will start the questioning first with the proponent of the bill, Senator Patterson. It is your turn first.
Senator Patterson: I am very pleased to welcome Mr. Taptuna, with whom I have worked closely since his appointment, and pleased that we are reviewing this bill, which I consider enshrining in legislation a made-in-the- North process. I would like to turn to Nunavut and ask the minister if he could speak a bit for the committee about the economic opportunities that currently exist in Nunavut in the natural resource sector, please.
Mr. Taptuna: Nunavut is a young territory. Without the natural resources mineral exploration that is happening there, it would be very tough to have a strong economic output for the territory. However, with the strong mineral activity happening there, the mineral exploration, there are a mine and a couple of properties that are well advanced in development. That brings up the employment opportunities, of course, with the one mine that we have in Kivalliq Region, an upcoming one in the Baffin region and a couple of other well-advanced developments happening in the Kitikmeot Region. Without economic activity like that, it is difficult to move the territory forward. The need for infrastructure is very high, but with the territory attracting major players, major companies into the territory, and with major investments happening, we do see a brighter economic future for the territory.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Minister, I know that you attend mining conferences like the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and the Cordilleran Roundup, as I do. I think you would agree that investment capital is nervous in the world right now and hard to come by, especially for junior companies. Could you talk a bit about why you think Nunavut is attractive to investors and particularly how this bill might contribute to making the jurisdiction continue to be attractive for investors?
Mr. Taptuna: Absolutely, I do attend these roundups or conferences when it comes to mineral exploration and mining.
With this bill we see it having an easier flow for an entry point for proponents out there. You have to remember there are a lot of smaller companies out there, too, trying to get in on the action. Nunavut has one of the richest geologies in the world. You name it, we have it: base metals, precious metals, gold. That has attracted a lot of investors. However, when it comes to mining investment, it is like anything else — nervous at times. With this bill, it will create more certainty.
As you know, we are in competition with other countries for the investment dollars out there, and we are hoping this bill will create more certainty for investors out there to come to Nunavut and to Canada.
Senator Sibbeston: I was going to start by telling Mr. Taptuna that in the 1980s I was the minister of economic development for the Northwest Territories, and at that time Nunavut was part of the Northwest Territories. At the time most of the development, the mines, oil and gas was really in the west. I used to travel into the Baffin area, the eastern Arctic. I was always impressed with the people and the lands, but there was very little development at the time. I think there was one mine up in the North.
Since Nunavut was created, there has been a lot more development. Has the creation of Nunavut made a difference in terms of the government and the people promoting and encouraging development? Has that come about in the last few years?
Would you comment on that?
Mr. Taptuna: Absolutely. With the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, there is more certainty in the regulatory regimes, which most proponents and companies see as an easier approach to get into compared to some of the jurisdictions in Canada. The settling of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement created that. The Nunavut territory has attracted many major mining companies to the North. In the past, the handful of junior companies there did not really spend a lot of money. With the land claims agreement settled, it has created a lot of certainty on the regulatory side; and Bill C-47 has created even more certainty. During the Northwest Territories days, proponents had to deal with many groups; but the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement has attracted big major companies to the North.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Vician, we have been advised of the extent of consultation that has gone on in the North. Indian Affairs officials have told us that there has been extensive consultation with land claim groups and with the Northwest Territories government. Could you comment on that aspect because consultation is so important? How significant is this bill for the future of the North in terms of economic development?
Mr. Vician: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada undertook the consultation, as is their responsibility. Its officials are best to respond to that. I note that they spoke earlier to that before the committee. We noted in AANDC's presentation before this committee that about 35 meetings or discussions took place over the course of the drafting of the bill. They met with many groups separately. Although the officials did not share all of the details with the Government of the Northwest Territories, which would not have been appropriate in the context of federal responsibility, we believe that they satisfied the requirement. They had extensive consultations with the Government of the Northwest Territories, which in its own right is responsible for Commissioner's Lands in the Northwest Territories and would have been impacted also by this bill.
In terms of the proposed legislation, we believe that once enacted, it will improve certainty, predictability and timeliness. It is a necessary and outstanding piece arising out of the claims that have been negotiated and settled to this time. Overall, it will improve the certainty of having legislation in place that deals specifically in this case with the dispute resolution mechanism applying to access to land. In the absence of it, we believe, a situation would be created whereby the GNWT post-devolution would have to deal with this matter in any course. It is important that we resolve these matters as much as possible prior to the devolution date.
Senator Sibbeston: We have been informed that in terms of the whole area of dispute in the North with respect to the use of lands — surface rights — the existing land claims with the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho have dispute resolutions. Fortunately, parties have not had to revert to those provisions as there has not been any dispute. This bill deals with disputes, but the reality is that there have not been any disputes. Despite this, do you feel that it is significant for the future and that someday it may be of some use to the parties in the North?
Mr. Vician: In short terms, yes, it is very important. The requirement for surface rights legislation is built in as an expectation of some of the claim agreements. In addition, there is the issue of Crown lands that still exist across the territory. This is important in the terms that it encourages the parties — the landowners, those who have rights on lands, developers and others — to come to terms quickly and reasonably with regard to access arrangements.
In the absence of that, it provides a mechanism that will empower a board to oversee any of those disputes and ensure that that board is constituted by people who know the issues of the North. Elements of traditional knowledge and understanding of the land are principles that the board must be constituted with. We believe that this is an important piece of the puzzle, one that will encourage parties to land rights to resolve issues in advance. And in the absence of that they will understand the process that is available to them if they cannot resolve that.
I share your view, and we have our research that confirms that we have had very limited need for a dispute resolution system. This step in proposed legislation ensures clarity and that industry and others will be clear about what would happen in the event that such an issue arises.
Senator Mitchell: This is very interesting testimony for us to hear. This is peripheral, perhaps, minister, but this agreement is one step towards devolution. We are all quite interested in that process, but maybe not quite as interested as you are. Could you give us an idea of where you are in the process of complete devolution and whether you have any idea of the timeline, or is it just too unpredictable?
Mr. Taptuna: If I may, I will have my deputy minister respond to that question.
Robert Long, Deputy Minister, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut: At this time, we are at the earliest stages. The Government of Canada has appointed a negotiator and we have a negotiator. Their initial report has gone to AANDC for the minister's decision to proceed with devolution, and we are looking forward to that happening.
Senator Mitchell: Does this bill add new things to the responsibilities of your government, or does it just capture all that you have been doing? If it adds, what kind of budget does it involve and where do you get that money?
Mr. Taptuna: Deputy Minister Long will respond to that question.
Mr. Long: If you are referring to the bill and our negotiations with mining companies, it clarifies and simplifies. We are using a very similar process to this now — one project, one review: The Nunavut Impact Review Board holds a hearing; the federal government is an intervenor and the Government of Nunavut is an intervenor; the land claim organizations have their say; and there is also room for communities and individuals to talk as well. This simply clarifies some of the roles and most specifically and importantly clearly sets out the time frame so this cannot drag out indefinitely. There are very tight time frames for the NIRB organization to make its recommendations. As well, the minister has a limited period of time to respond. Again, this is from the perspective of the mining company putting forward a proposal. This bill speeds things up and makes it very clear to them how much time it will take. I think that is one of the most important new elements within the bill: the tight time frame.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Minister, on page 5 of my electronic copy and page 4 of the paper copy of your presentation, you mention that offence provisions are set out in the bill in relation to land use plans and project certificates. I understand that offence provisions for land use plans are quite unique in the rest of Canada. Can you give us some idea of why you set out offences and whether there are penalties associated with them?
Mr. Taptuna: Thank you, senator. As the committee is well aware, at times there are overlapping jurisdictions within federal departments, including the Government of Nunavut. For example, there are the Department of the Environment and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
An approval of a project certification sets out very clearly the offences and whose authority some of these offences fall under. It clarifies that and makes it very workable.
The Chair: I will go to the other senator from the territories, from the Yukon, Senator Lang.
Senator Lang: Thank you. One of the witnesses just referred to the essence of the legislation before us, which will be basically one project and one review. It is interesting to note, if I could for the record here, that this debate took place here two years ago, almost three years ago, in respect to going towards that for the rest of Canada — one project, one review — with a lot of criticism. Yet, at the same time, if you look at the territories, it is a very positive and efficient approach to meeting our environmental responsibilities and creating certainty.
My question is to the witness from the Northwest Territories. Looking ahead in respect to the question of environmental reviews in the future for the Northwest Territories, my understanding is that you do not have similar legislation to this in place. Is it the intention of the Government of the Northwest Territories, as it moves towards devolution, to put a similar type of system in place in order to put a review in place that will meet the demands of the mining industry, as there has been a lot of criticism in the past?
Mr. Vician: Thank you for the question, senator. The process at this point is primarily focused on the devolution agreement, which, as I indicated, we intend to see completed with the effective date being April 1, 2014. As part of the agreement with Canada, the approach to that process is to mirror the existing legislation so that the GNWT's legislature would have enabled legislation to deal with issues like surface rights, like the Territorial Lands Act. However, in terms of the matter that you raise regarding reviewing major projects, in the Northwest Territories, the primary legislation that applies is the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, and that sets out the process that both major and small projects will be reviewed with, and that has been in place for nearly a decade now and will continue in various forms as we work through the devolution process.
At this point, the MVRMA will potentially see some additional changes prior to devolution, but in essence, after devolution, the GNWT will have a responsibility as well as the federal government will have a responsibility as part of the MVRMA. We hope as we continue to move forward that we improve this regulatory system, and many suggestions and recommendations have been made in that area. The federal government has led that challenge, but we feel quite confident that we are improving that system day by day.
More currently, we have a number of major projects in the hopper today, such as the Gahcho Kue Diamond Mine for the Northwest Territories, and that proceeds through a good, normal process. We feel quite confident. The MVRMA process is working, and we expect to hear from the panel, from the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, in the coming months with regard to their report. Again, improvements have been made. We continue to work in that direction.
Senator Seidman: Minister, my question concerns the environmental protection and participation piece of NuPPAA. It is clear that the bill is concerned with the environment. In fact, one of the biggest aspects this bill provides is a kind of stewardship over the environment. There is a screening process to determine the possible eco-systemic impact of a proposed project and a monitoring program for eco-systemic impacts set up through this bill. What criteria are used to evaluate whether a project will have a significant eco-systemic impact during the project screening process?
Mr. Taptuna: Thank you for that question. As the senator is well aware, we do have our land claims agreement within Nunavut, and the criteria is through the Nunavut Impact Review Board. Once the screening is completed to the satisfaction of all stakeholders involved, including the territorial government, the federal government and communities, once that is agreed upon, the next phase will begin for the regulatory processes. Anyone would have the opportunity, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, to put their criteria into a screening process. Once that is completed to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, the next phase kicks in for this regulatory process. Mr. Long could elaborate a little more on the process of that.
Mr. Long: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I can explain by example. Recently the Mary River project, the Baffin Island iron ore project, went through the NIRB process. All parties put forward their level of support and expressed their concerns ranging from environmental to animals to archeological to cultural. All of that was included in the discussion. When NIRB made its recommendation to the minister, it included 82 specific recommendations regarding these various concerns, so the approval went forward with recommendations that covered the whole spectrum of environmental concerns.
We would expect that to be the normal process that would be followed in the future. Everyone who has a concern can get it on the table for discussion, and the NIRB filters that down into the ones that it considers to be significant and makes recommendations. In the case of this particular project, I believe the minister accepted all but two as the project certificate was issued. It is very effective and very clear.
Senator Unger: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. Mr. Minister, my question concerns transboundary projects. Who may request a review of a proposed project and on what basis? Who would determine significant adverse effects on a project?
Mr. Taptuna: Thank you very much for that question. For a project in Nunavut, there are always transboundary issues, especially with base metals. As you know, base metals have to be shipped across the ocean to be smelted. There are always transboundary issues related to that type of activity. Once NIRB screens that and puts it through its regulatory process, the final decision is made here by the Minister of AANDC. Once that decision comes down, the concerns and recommendations are taken back to NIRB and they look at it again. Once a decision has been made, it is usually one of the things that Canada and other interested stakeholders will have to partake in coming up with how the transboundary issues will be dealt with. If they are international, of course, that is usually the federal government's responsibility to look at.
The Chair: That ends our questions, unless there is anyone who wants to go for a second round. Seeing none, I would like to thank you very much, minister, for coming with your people to help us through this process. Thank you also very much, Mr. Vician from Yellowknife, for joining us tonight. We appreciate it very much.
We are continuing now with the second half of this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We are continuing our study of Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Bill.
It is my pleasure to welcome our second panel this evening. Gentlemen, thank you for being here and for taking the time out of your busy schedules to appear before our committee. I would like to introduce, from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Bob Bleaney, Vice President, External Relations; and Alex Ferguson, Vice- President, Policy and Environment. From the Mining Association of Canada, we have Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Rick Meyers, Vice-President, Technical and Northern Affairs.
Gentlemen, I do not know who wants to present first; I do not think it makes much difference. If you have talked it over, we will go with Mr. Bleaney first. Following the second presentation, we will have some questions.
Bob Bleaney, Vice President, External Relations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, or CAPP, represents Canada's upstream oil and gas sector. Our members find and develop over 90 per cent of Canada's petroleum resources, all across the country. Together, they invest over $50 billion annually and employ more than half a million Canadians.
We appreciate the opportunity to contribute CAPP's perspectives regarding Bill C-47. While we believe there are areas where greater clarity in the legislation's wording would be beneficial, we are supportive of the intent and the spirit of this legislation and believe it is another positive step in regulatory reform that will aid northern development.
Broad-based regulatory reform is fundamental to attracting and enabling investment that creates jobs, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians and will cascade benefits throughout the country in the form of more jobs and strengthening of the economy, while ensuring a continued high standard of environmental performance.
Regulatory bottlenecks in the past have often led to project delays or outright cancellations due to missed market opportunities. With the resulting missed jobs and economic and social benefits that flow from these projects, Canadians are directly impacted.
Of the legislation contained in Bill C-47, CAPP member companies would be most affected by changes proposed for the proposed Northwest Territories surface rights board act, or the proposed NWTSRBA.
In its submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CAPP expressed some concerns with respect to the NWTSRBA, particularly in areas of clarity, certainty and flexibility as summarized in the following.
First, with respect to access orders, our reading of the draft legislation and our consultations with department officials of AANDC have flagged questions as to what conditions and for what types of activities the jurisdiction of the board could likely be invoked for industry operations.
More specifically, it is unclear to us whether access orders under the NWTSRBA could be used to enable a number of ancillary activities critical to the commercialization of discoveries, such as an all-season road, or provide for supporting infrastructure, such as a gas processing plant.
Second, several provisions in the NWTSRBA require the board to consider the impacts of access, that is, ensuring the access route is least harmful, as per proposed section 51(2), and will not significant interference with the use of lands as per proposed section 50(2)(b) and develop terms and conditions for the applied-for access to minimize those impacts.
CAPP is concerned that such assessments may, in some circumstances, overlap with assessments of other regulators, such as the National Energy Board, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board or other regulatory authorities. There could also be instances and confusion between the terms and conditions set down by the board and those set down by other regulators. In CAPP's view, the role of the board should be primarily related to determining compensation for surface access to ensure minimal overlap or conflict with the review processes of other regulators. It would be important to ensure close alignment with other regulators in potential areas of overlap through the future design of the relevant regulations.
Third, proposed section 90 requires that all access orders be reviewed in their entirety every five years. While CAPP accepts the potential need for periodic reviews of the compensation payable under access orders, clause 90 suggests that the board is required to reconsider all of the terms and conditions of access, which could create considerable long-term uncertainty for the holder of any access order. In CAPP's view, the use of the review provision should be limited to only those situations where there have been material changes to the original facts or original circumstances for a given access order.
In regard to consistency across jurisdictions, CAPP understands that AANDC has looked to Yukon and Nunavut for models of how surface rights legislation can be implemented in areas of settled land claims. We suggest this review should be expanded to the provinces, including Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan. These provinces have had extensive experience with commercial oil and gas operations and surface rights access and have addressed a number of the issues raised in our analysis of the legislation. A review of these pieces of legislation and related regulations to look at definitions and questions of jurisdiction may provide some learning and increase consistency for operators in multiple territories and provinces.
At this point, I will invite my colleague, Alex Ferguson, to address the rest of our presentation.
Alex Ferguson, Vice-President, Policy and Environment, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers: As my colleague mentioned, our concerns regarding the proposed surface rights board act part of the bill before you pertain primarily to the clarity of how certain provisions will be applied, but we believe strongly these issues can be addressed through the implementation phase.
With respect to the sector we represent in the North, the key near-term opportunities for onshore oil and gas development relate to what we call "unconventional" petroleum resource development. In other, similar jurisdictions, effectively designed surface rights regimes have proven to be significant contributors to certainty and clarity around access to unconventional resources. This is a key to the commercialization of that resource. CAPP broadly supports Bill C-47 as it provides additional certainty about regulatory processes and time-limited decision making for northern energy projects while ensuring continued environmental performance and, very important, fair treatment of rights holders to the lands. These are fundamental to investment, which creates jobs, economic growth, the tax base and revenues for social spending.
Canada's North has resource potential for oil and gas but is competing with other regions in Canada for investment capital. Industry invested approximately $600 million in the North over the past three years and is committed to spending a further $650 million based on land acquisitions alone. The North is a key area of interest to industry, an area of vast potential to Canada, but not without challenges.
Developing the North's petroleum resources faces several barriers, which make regulatory efficiency that much more crucial. Being a frontier area, naturally, there is a lack of infrastructure, which is likely the most limiting factor for development in this region, whether it be workforce, service sector, community infrastructure, such as housing and recreation, or physical infrastructure, roads, pipelines and facilities for our business.
Second is the importance of sound operational regulation through the exploration to reclamation life cycle. In a frontier area, it is important that the regulatory model appreciate the difference between early exploration, which is where we are now, and development. At this phase it is important to encourage and support exploration activity to assess appropriately the future resource development opportunities. Efficient and effective regulation is key to increasing exploration activity.
The North is not alone in its challenges. Whether in producing jurisdictions such as British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, potential development areas such as Quebec and New Brunswick, or in northern frontier areas, common challenges facing Canadian oil and gas development exist. These challenges would include access to domestic, North American and other international markets; competitiveness in the areas of fiscal and regulatory policies; workforce; access to investment capital; and, of course, the social licence with respect to public confidence and trust.
The devolution policy for the Northwest Territories, set to go into effect April 1, 2014, in conjunction with the new legislative changes is a potential opportunity for the region to achieve its vision for oil and gas development. This vision should drive the development of regulatory policy.
We believe Bill C-47, a key part of the action plan on northern regulatory improvement, is a step in the right direction. We want to thank you for this opportunity to present to you today, and we look forward to any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will go to Mr. Gratton, please.
Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I will introduce the topic and ask my colleague, Mr. Meyers, to speak to some of our specific recommendations.
First of all, in terms of whom we represent, the Mining Association of Canada represents Canada's producing mining industry as opposed to the exploration arm of the business. We have many companies operating across the country, producing a wide range of commodities, from coast to coast to coast.
In our presentation today, we will focus almost exclusively on the part of the bill that relates to Nunavut, the NuPPAA legislation, which is our primary interest. One of our members, Agnico Eagle, currently operates the only operating mine in Nunavut, Meadowbank, which hosted the Prime Minister a couple of years ago, and Agnico also has another project in advanced exploration and development, possibly Nunavut's next gold mine.
I want to mention also that the Mining Association of Canada has a stewardship program called "Toward Sustainable Mining" that is a condition of membership. Members have to report against some pretty strict performance criteria every year, and every three years those self-assessments undergo third-party evaluation. Agnico, as a member of MAC, is fully committed to this program and to implementing it in Nunavut.
Nunavut, as you know, is a highly prospective jurisdiction, although it is one that is also very sparsely populated, with limited infrastructure, which makes it a fairly expensive jurisdiction to explore and develop in. Also, this bill, once passed, will complete the regulatory framework in Nunavut, which has been a long time coming. We want to express our delight, really, that it has finally made it this far to the Senate and that soon we will have a completed regulatory framework that will provide industry with the certainty it needs to move projects forward.
I want to emphasize that in the development of this legislation the Mining Association of Canada was consulted extensively by the government to an extent, frankly, that is I think, as far as northern legislation is concerned, quite unprecedented, and we want to acknowledge that. That is not to say that there are not some parts of the bill where we would have liked to see some changes or some things that we felt could have been improved further, but overall we feel that it is a good piece of legislation, and we certainly cannot complain about the extent to which our views were taken into account and considered.
With those opening remarks, I will now turn it over to Mr. Meyers to speak more specifically to the legislation.
Rick Meyers, Vice-President, Technical and Northern Affairs, Mining Association of Canada: If you are following along in the deck, if you turn about seven pages forward to where you see a picture of diamonds, this is where I will start.
As I am sure you are all aware, mining in the North has brought major contributions and new economic development. Since about 1998 there have been some 35,000 new person-years of employment and about $12 billion in capital and operating expenditures, which has included major expenditures in northern business development including about $4 billion in Aboriginal business development.
The industry has contributed to northern infrastructure. Over time there have been roads, rail, hydro development, shipping and ice roads. Of course, there is an annual ice road to the diamond mines. There has been support for health care, education, sports facilities and other community development. In terms of workforce development, there have been apprenticeship programs, supervisory training and community-based project training, as well as extensive programming and other Aboriginal skills training and education.
As you are probably aware, in January the Conference Board of Canada put out a report that indicated that Canada's overall northern mineral development is expected to grow by some 91 per cent by the end of this decade. For Nunavut, the opportunity is the fact that it is the least explored region in Canada. It has very high mineral potential; it has six major projects currently in environmental assessment and permitting, and there are several new projects coming forward within the next five years or so. We could see new projects commissioned well in advance of 2020.
If you go to the next page where there is a map of the North, there are 14 projects shown here. There are six in blue that are currently under environmental assessment and permitting. We expect to see a few of those come into production in the next five years or so.
Regarding the investment climate, there is lots of opportunity. New development attracts new investment, so an enabling regulatory framework is important. However, investment cannot be taken for granted. Capital is mobile; competition is global. Investment decisions are made on fairness and predictability of process, so confidence in the regulatory review capacity is of the utmost importance. Affirming Nunavut's investment climate is critical for both future development and the territory's economic and social well-being.
With bill C-47, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Bill, there has been an inclusive consultation process, as Mr. Gratton mentioned. The bill defines Nunavut's land use planning and regulatory framework, and it recognizes the importance of responsible economic development for the well-being and self-reliance of the Inuit of Nunavut. It ensures predictable and robust environmental review, and the land use plans that will eventually come out of it will confirm what land is available for development. The bill promotes sustainable development. In that context, it is predicated on compliance and performance, and it demonstrates capacity of process. Above all, it will encourage new investment and enhance Nunavut's economic opportunities going forward.
However, there are issues and a few things where we see there are opportunities for improvement in the bill. With respect to timelines, over the course of the consultation and work programs that we had with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we were pleased to see that the timelines came down to less than 24 months. There are options within the bill to extend the timelines, but they do not specify a limit to that extension. We think that should be more clearly defined. Additionally, the federal government's 2012 Bill C-38, the budget bill, established a timeline for comprehensive studies elsewhere in the country at 12 months. Although we recognize that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement imposes certain obligations, we have difficulty believing it should take twice as long in the North as it does elsewhere in the country.
With respect to classes of work and activities that could be exempt from screening, some jurisdictions do not require screening or environmental assessment of certain low-impact type activities. Schedule 3 is intended to confirm those classes of projects that are not required to undergo screening and environmental assessment, but the schedule has not been completed yet. We think it should be completed before the bill comes into force.
With respect to minor variances, allowing minor variances is a flexible approach for solutions where absolute compliance is not practicable or the variance would create no significant impact as a result. However, to allow a variance, there is an extensive public review program outlined in the bill that we do not believe is necessary. It is elaborate, and we suggest that the Nunavut Planning Commission should have the authority at its own discretion to allow minor variances but at the same time require them to publish their reasons for decision in the public registry.
Finally, with respect to offences under land use plans, we do not really believe that creating quasi-criminal offences under a land use plan is the way to go. It is unusual and unnecessary. Such offences are normally regulated under various permitting and licensing conditions, so we recommend that they do not be included in this bill.
Finally, if you look to the future for mining in Canada and particularly in the North, there are obviously strong opportunities that I have spoken of. There is the global mineral demand, and it is driven by emerging markets around the world. Mining is central to northern development and northern economic development, and we believe that Bill C- 47 will bring the long-awaited certainty for mineral development that is so badly needed. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for those presentations. We will now begin our questioning. Again I will start with Senator Patterson, who is carrying the bill in the Senate.
Senator Patterson: I do appreciate that courtesy very much.
I would like to ask some specific questions of CAPP and of the Mining Association of Canada. That has to do with the presentation of the witness about some concerns about the bill. I am referring to CAPP. You talked in your presentation about the need for perhaps more clarity so as to avoid overlap.
My understanding is that there is an expectation, just as industry was consulted on the development of the bill, that as and when regulations are required to implement the bill, you will have an opportunity for input. I think you said in your closing remarks that it will be important to ensure close alignment with other regulators in potential areas of overlap through the future design of the relevant regulations. Do I understand that you are recommending, and I am addressing this to CAPP, that these concerns could be clarified and addressed if you have the opportunity to be involved in the development of regulations?
Mr. Bleaney: Yes, indeed, that is our observation. We recognize that in the crafting of the bill there were some things we thought could be further clarified. We think there is time to do that and an opportunity through the discussions that we know will unfold going forward as to getting further definition in the regulation and the like. There should be opportunity to help with that clarification, and that is what we are saying. We are supporting the bill in its form but observing that we would like that opportunity to have more discussion as it moves through its process to put that into effect.
Senator Patterson: I have a similar question to the Mining Association of Canada. I was pleased that you said you were delighted with the extent of consultation on the bill. Could you describe the extent of that consultation and perhaps the significant effort that the Mining Association of Canada put into developing this bill? I believe you had your own legal experts in the mining sector. Could you give the committee an idea of what your development was and over what period of time? It is quite impressive.
Mr. Gratton: Much of this took place before I rejoined the Mining Association of Canada. Mr. Meyers was involved in the consultations that took place. There were three comprehensive workshops to which we were invited and able to participate. It was not a case of here is a paper, send in your comments. There were actually some extensive workshops with other parties where we were able to go through elements of the bill. The process allowed for a few rounds of comprehensive submissions. Mr. Meyers may want to elaborate on that.
Mr. Meyers: We collaborated with the NWT & Nunavut Chamber of Mines and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada in preparing fairly comprehensive submissions on what we looked for in terms of improvements. We were reasonably satisfied with what came out of those submissions and the responses. As I said at the start, we were gratified with the way it all turned out.
Senator Patterson: Those took place over years.
Mr. Meyers: It was over two or three years; and there were three major two-day workshops.
Senator Patterson: Would it be fair to say that there was a give-and-take process with industry and with the Inuit principally consulted; that you got some things you wanted, but perhaps not everything you wanted; and that overall you are certainly happy to see the bill go forward?
Mr. Meyers: Yes. The main focus we were concerned about was timelines. At the start, the timelines were considerably longer. Over the couple of years that we worked with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in dialogue with the minister's staff, they came down to under two years; and we were quite pleased with that.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in the environmental protection and participation features of this bill. Apparently, one of the main thrusts is environmental stewardship. Are you aware of how the significant eco-system impact will be assessed? That is critical to knowing what kind of environmental assessment a project will get. Has that been defined to your satisfaction at this point?
Mr. Gratton: I will make a few observations. Unique about this bill is the integration of land use planning and environmental assessment. I say "unique" because I am not sure we have anything like it anywhere else in Canada. It enables what I think many people have been calling for for many years — much more forward planning. It will provide industry with greater certainty with respect to the land base. You will not explore and develop in an area that you know at the community level is considered an area where they do not want you. If you know that early enough, you can plan for that and avoid lost time and investment dollars.
Land use planning will give you more up-front information. If it is an area where they are encouraging development, it will give you up-front information on how to plan for that. Even when they are encouraging development in an area, you need to design your projects appropriately and having more up-front information in terms of community priorities and environmental considerations. The land use planning up-front component of this approach is forward-looking and to be commended.
With respect to the back end, the actual environmental assessment process is largely consistent with what you would find elsewhere and will lead to pretty robust environmental reviews, as you would expect in Canada.
Senator Mitchell: Elsewhere, environmental reviews are triggered under certain circumstances under different acts in different ways, to some extent. Is there some threshold size or impact level before which a project would not require an environmental assessment? Put another way, will all mines require an environmental assessment? Will all drilling operations require an environmental assessment? Will any development of roads to get to mines require that?
Mr. Meyers: Certainly, all mines will go through an environmental assessment. When I referred to minor variances with low-impact projects, I was thinking more of the exploration phase of the industry where at the start it is more of a surface survey without any significant land disturbance. Certainly, anything beyond that would go through an environmental assessment.
With the bill, the Nunavut Planning Commission will screen the project before it gets sent to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for review in terms of compliance.
Mr. Bleaney: I was observing with my colleague that the focus is on the Nunavut region. From CAPP's point of view, we did not particularly study the bill from that perspective. In the broadest context, the approaches being taken by CEAA by definition on the project activity list for those items that need to be under full environmental assessment constitute the guidance that would make sense in our industry. It probably parallels what is being looked at in the Nunavut region.
Senator Mitchell: In one of the presentations, I cannot remember which, some concern was raised or at least we were alerted to the fact of the quasi-criminalization of land use planning infractions. It is unique apparently in that it is not done anywhere else in the country. I was speaking to a previous witness just after the official witnessing was over. They were quite proud of that and feel that it is a really important initiative, but could you explain your reaction to that? It seems to be a little bit different from theirs.
Mr. Gratton: Yes. To us, it seems heavy-handed. We had this debate before the house when this bill was before the house as well. We are not saying there should not be consequences. There are consequences when you act in violation of land use plans in the provinces, for example. It is whether you should go to jail for it or whether there should be criminal sanctions as opposed to other types of sanctions you will find in other approaches in other jurisdictions. That is where we think it is heavy-handed and did not have to go that far. That is our view. It is obviously not the view that the government has taken with respect to this particular aspect.
Mr. Ferguson: I can offer a comment. For us, land use planning is not a very granular exercise; it is very broad, representing a number of values and interests from stakeholders on the land that will vary and change over time. We respect that, but we still count on it as a guiding light in terms of where we want to explore and develop our resources, but I agree with the mining sector on this, that it would be hard to really nail it down to a criminal act for non- compliance with that, given that it should be a broad-based representation of what should happen where on the land base.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us today; it is much appreciated. Mr. Bleaney, your group has raised some proposed amendments or specifications to the proposed legislation. I am sure you raised those same issues with the review committee. What was their response to your suggested changes?
Mr. Bleaney: Our submission to the review committee of the House of Commons was by way of a written submission, and as we witnessed the movement of the bill through that process, I do not believe any amendments whatsoever were made to the bill when it went through the review committee.
Senator Massicotte: How about when the government officials were drafting the legislation? I presume you were consulted?
Mr. Bleaney: Yes, we were. We had very good consultation. I was not involved with CAPP at that time, but on reading through the materials, we certainly were in good dialogue with the department and had good feedback on subject matters of interest.
Once again, I think some of our issues were looked after and some of them were still questions outstanding for us in terms of clarity. That is why we chose to make reference to it here, but as I pointed out earlier, at this point we are not suggesting wording changes to the bill. We are suggesting that we look forward — because we do have some time — to work through these things and sort these things as we go on from here.
Senator Massicotte: However, about the requirement for clarification, particularly when we get to regulations, they did not agree? They thought it was clear enough? Is that the response you got?
Mr. Bleaney: To some degree, yes. One example was we were suggesting they may want to look to other jurisdictions, and their perspective at the time was that they felt that there was some differences between the north and the south of 60 that justified their focus on sorth of 60 kind of comparators. It was just difference of opinion on that one.
Senator Massicotte: In your presentation you confirm that this is a good process, but you also thought to be complete you need to have an orientation for infrastructure program. It is nice to develop the area, but if there is no infrastructure, it impedes all of your developments. What are you suggesting specifically? Is that a polite way to say, "Mr. Government, we want you to spend more money on infrastructure"? Where are you going with this?
Mr. Bleaney: No, I would not say it that way. We are observing many challenges in the North vis-à-vis development progressing as a function of the lack of existing infrastructure. It is just a fact; that is the reality we face. As we move forward, we are anxious that we limit the other kinds of challenges we might have to face in terms of ambiguities or uncertainties in regulatory protocols that can add more cost and process to the system, because it already has enough challenges.
We are trying to streamline, would be the word, but ensure we get as much clarity as we can muster, be as clear as possible on what needs to be done so that we can move efficiently through the review protocols that we need to move through to satisfy all of the review processes that need to be satisfied, but not get ourselves caught up with uncertainties that cost more time and effort and confusion in the process.
Senator Massicotte: What is the normal operating mode when you go to these territories, in your own experience in Canada and elsewhere? Is the government there? Do you expect to spend quite a bit of money on infrastructure, or is it really your nickel completely? What is the normal approach there?
Mr. Bleaney: In some aspects I can relate to prior project experience in the North, in the Northwest Territories in particular. The majority of the major infrastructure that would be required for some of the big pipeline projects would largely fall with the proponent, but in the use of roads, for access to areas where we can move equipment by road, we certainly look to roads being maintained and that sort of thing. Availability of services, health and emergency services that are up there, we would certainly want to take advantage of those. However, the major infrastructure we need to build in terms of access roads into the site, that all sits with the proponent. We would draw on existing infrastructure that was up there to facilitate the development, but the primary focus is on the proponent.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Gratton, do you have any comment about the government's role for infrastructure?
Mr. Gratton: Since are you giving me the opening, if you look at the Meadowbank project, the infrastructure, there is a road, there is a port, and all of that has been paid for by the proponent. The last two federal budgets have included measures that have stripped away some of the ability to write off some of those costs, so it has made it a bit more expensive for mines to develop in the northern territories than it used to be.
Finance has sort of justified this with their commitment to a neutral tax system, which we take a little bit of issue with because it does not seem to be neutral to everyone.
This last budget, for example, announced the elimination of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, and it also moved some expenditures eligible under the Canadian exploration expense to the Canadian development expense, which is a difference between a 100 per cent versus a 30 per cent write-off.
All of that raises the cost of building new projects. We actually feel that where that will hurt the most is in the regions where infrastructure costs are highest — Northern Canada and in Nunavut. We are a little concerned by what those recent budget measures might actually do to limit development options in Nunavut.
Senator Massicotte: My understanding of the budget, to a large degree — there are some credit issues — I thought what they changed predominantly was the rate of depreciation. You are still allowed to amortize the total cost. It is a true cost system, but it is probably over the useful life of the project and not accelerated. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr. Gratton: Yes, but in a capital-intensive industry like ours, that is important.
Senator Massicotte: I appreciate that.
While I have Mr. Gratton here, if you do not mind deviating a little bit, tell me about your industry. Decades ago it suffered a bad reputation from the mining sense. Sometimes you would explore the mine, deplete the mine of its resources as you should, but you would leave the mine there in a state whereby the state or society suffered the consequences of contaminants and so on. What is the current practice and what is the current legislation ensuring that never occurs again?
Mr. Gratton: You cannot do it anymore anywhere. Any new project will require a form of security — bonding in Nunavut. In fact in Nunavut at the moment there is double bonding. As Senator Patterson knows, we are working to try to change that.
There are guarantees put in place that if the company were to go bankrupt, there would still be the means to reclaim the site.
Senator Massicotte: Is the bonding always adequate?
Mr. Gratton: It is determined by the government authorities. You cannot open a mine in Canada without being able to demonstrate you have the wherewithal to close it properly.
Senator Lang: I will follow up on that question. If I am not mistaken, you as the proponent are required as part of your original submission to provide a closure plan as part of your looking for consent to go ahead. Is that correct?
Mr. Gratton: Yes, absolutely. Companies these days, for the most part, undertake progressive reclamation. You reclaim as you go because it is good business to do it. It limits your final liability; it can keep your costs down if you engage in progressive reclamation.
At the end when you actually close out the site, there is still lots to do, but you can make progress as you go along. If there is a road you are no longer using or if there is a part of a site you have depleted, you can start that process, even though you are mining somewhere else.
Senator Lang: As you know, I am from the Yukon and we have experienced this issue a number of times in the last decade. I have to say that the projects that have gone ahead now are definitely following along those guidelines and really could represent a model for the rest of the country in respect to understanding what environmental responsibilities the mining companies are taking on, and the end result. I do not think most Canadians are aware of that, which is unfortunate, because we are meeting all our objectives, creating jobs and meeting our environmental responsibilities.
I want to go back to the "one project, one review," which is the basis of the Nunavut policy — the legislation — before us. Prior to this, two years ago, there was quite a debate over the changes to the Canadian environmental legislation to provide for one project, one review across the country. We have had some time go by. Now that we have you here before us, perhaps you could update us on how well that legislation is being implemented in conjunction with the provinces. Also, are we seeing some results in terms of efficiencies and, at the same time, are we meeting our environmental responsibilities?
Mr. Gratton: I am glad you asked me that question. Certainly, with respect to mining, there is a fair bit of misunderstanding out there about what all these changes mean for the mining sector.
The changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the removal of screening-level reviews did not affect us, because mines are subject to either comprehensive studies or full panel reviews. Just recently, the government has published in Canada Gazette new draft project list regulations that specify which projects will be required for an environmental assessment. They pretty much keep consistent with what existed before. Mining projects that were required to undergo environmental assessment under the old legislation will continue to be required to undergo environmental assessment under the new legislation.
We did not ask to be removed from EAs. Our industry understands that is a responsibility. A major project like this should be subject to that kind of scrutiny. We wanted an efficient process, and we wanted a review process that allowed for, at a minimum, harmonization and coordination with the provinces.
In the past, there was not actually a body that was designated responsible for conducting EAs; it fell to whichever department put up their hand and said they would do it. Senator Neufeld will remember the frustration we had in British Columbia with this. The federal EAs would typically start 18 months after the provincial EAs. If you are that far apart in time, there is no opportunity for coordination or harmonization.
Now, under the new legislation, the federal review starts at the same time as the provincial review. We are seeing on the ground much more coordination between both levels of government in every jurisdiction, and I think that leads to better review outcomes. It certainly leads to more timely reviews. You do not have to wait another 18 months after the provincial review is completed to find out whether the federal government approves your project, because it is happening at the same time.
That is very significant for us, and that is probably the biggest single benefit of the reforms as far as mining is concerned.
Senator Unger: Thank you, gentlemen. I really enjoyed your presentation. Being from Edmonton, it was very interesting to me.
My question refers to the mandatory five-year review and your comment that it seems onerous, because the board is required to consider or reconsider all of the terms and conditions of access, and could create long-term uncertainty.
Is this a significant issue? Is it likely to be a deterrent? It was Mr. Bleaney in his presentation who mentioned it. I was wondering if this is a big hill to be climbing.
Mr. Bleaney: No, we do not anticipate that is a major issue in the short term. What ties back to this and may provide a little broader context is that some of these surface rights negotiations being referred to in here would seem to fit well within the time frames being talked about, if they are a simple short-term event for the sake of an exploratory well.
However, if we were expanding beyond that and thinking in terms of there being a successful exploratory well, and now you have a long-term project and a long-term development project in mind, access to that on a sustained basis would be important. That is why if, someone started all over again every five years, it would be a little bit concerning perhaps to the proponent as to whether they would lose their access provisions in the same way.
That was the focus on that point. I think we have time to work through these issues as we walk down the path of putting in regulation and put in clarity around how some of these other developments might have to be managed. We are optimistic that we can find a good answer for that as we work it through.
Mr. Meyers: We have been negotiating with the government on water licences for mining. Up until now, water licences are five to seven years — maybe up to eight years — but for a mine that will operate for maybe 10, 20 or 30 years, having to go through renewal every five to seven years is very expensive, both for the company and also for government. In most other jurisdictions in the country, water licences or licences to mine are issued more or less for the life of the mine, with periodic reviews as required. However, there is certainly not a full renewal process.
The Chair: That ends the questions. I want to thank all of you gentlemen very much for taking time out of your busy schedules to come to talk to us about some interesting points.
(The committee adjourned.)