Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 15 - Evidence - September 18, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S- 6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Surface Rights Tribunal Act, met this day at 8:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome back, everyone. I hope you all had a great summer. We're all back to work with what I understand is going to be a busy schedule again this session. My name is Richard Neufeld, I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate and I am chair of this committee.
I would also 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. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You may also find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under ``Senate Committees.''
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair to my right, who I will introduce, Senator Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Lang: Dan Lang, Yukon.
The Chair: I would like to introduce our staff, beginning with our acting clerk, Jodi Turner, and our Library of Parliament analyst, Marc LeBlanc.
On June 17, 2014, the Senate authorized our committee to examine Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.
Honourable senators, this bill, whose short title is the ``Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act,'' was introduced in the Senate and received first reading on June 3, 2014.
The clerk has distributed a copy of the bill and the clause-by-clause briefing binder from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to your offices. If you do not have these documents with you today or require anything, please signal the clerk.
It gives me great pleasure today to welcome the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The minister is accompanied by Tara Shannon, Director, Resource Policy and Programs, Northern Affairs; Janice Traynor, Senior Analyst, Environment and Renewable Resources, Northern Affairs; and Tom Isaac, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice.
Minister Valcourt, we're glad you're here today, and we look forward to your remarks as usual when you've come before us. The floor is yours, sir.
[Translation]
Hon. Bernard Valcourt, P.C., M.P., Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am honoured to be back before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources this morning to discuss the final legislative suite of our government's ambitious action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.
As you know, this action plan is intended to put in place modern, robust and responsive regulatory regimes for the environmental assessment of projects across the north.
This is the third time in less than two years that I have come before this committee to present to you on legislation under this action plan. I first appeared in May 2013 to introduce Bill C-47. As you will recall, that bill became the Northern Jobs and Growth Act. I also appeared before you in December 2013 on Bill C-15, which became the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, a piece of legislation that came into effect on April 1 of this year. Finally, I have come before you today to discuss Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act.
Honourable senators, these regulatory changes will ensure that Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut have in place consistent and predictable regulatory environments. This will ensure that the north remains a competitive and attractive place to work, live and invest, creating jobs and economic opportunities for northerners starting now and for generations to come.
Honourable senators, after your review of Bill S-6, you will have reviewed a total of 8 different pieces of legislation across the north. This is no small feat, and I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your important contribution and for your continued dedication to the north.
I do not want to take anything away from anyone else's contribution, but I want to especially thank Senator Lang from Yukon, who agreed to sponsor this bill here in the Senate.
The legislation before us today proposes to amend two existing laws. The first is the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, which governs the environmental assessment framework in Yukon. The second is the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, which manages and regulates the use of water in Yukon.
[English]
Bill S-6, the legislation before us today, proposes to amend two existing laws, as I just said. Many of the proposed changes to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, also known as YESAA, are based on recommendations from a comprehensive review of the development process to the parties of the Yukon umbrella agreement which mandated a one-time, five-year review following the enactment of the legislation in 2003.
The review of the act, as mandated by the Yukon umbrella agreement, began in 2008 and involved representatives of both governments: that is, the Yukon and the federal government, First Nations in Yukon and individual First Nations in the territory.
At the end of the review, the parties jointly agreed to more than 70 recommendations, some of which required legislative amendments. These include the non-application of CEAA, making it clear that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012 did not apply in the Yukon, thus ensuring that YESAA continues as the only environmental assessment process in Yukon; extending board members' terms to ensure both quorum and continuity during screenings and reviews; and obliging designated offices to consider the need for effects-monitoring when conducting an evaluation.
This review was concluded in 2012, and since then additional consultations were conducted on amendments stemming from the government's Northern action plan, which were also proposed to align YESAA with regulatory legislation in Canada south of 60 and the other two territories.
Some of these changes stemming from the action plan include beginning-to-end time limits for environmental assessments; the ability of the minister to provide policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board; provides for the creation of cost-recovery regulations; and the ability to delegate certain powers to the territorial government.
These consultations continued up to May 2014 and resulted in further improvements to the bill before it was introduced in Parliament this past June. I would also like to remind honourable senators that our regulatory regime is co-managed by the governments of Canada, Yukon and First Nations. This means that not only has Bill S-6 met the responsibility of the duty to consult, but First Nations representatives are directly involved in the decision-making process as the Council of Yukon First Nations nominates members on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.
Yukon's regulatory system since the enactment of this legislation in 2003 has served as a model for the rest of the country. We have seen the enormous changes and progress that has taken place in the Yukon since the adoption of YESAA.
As a matter of fact, if I may, I'd like to quote the Premier of the Yukon government, Premier Pasloski, who gave credit to YESAA for Yukon's economic success, stating:
Frameworks like the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act enable us to harness the momentum of the past decade and turn it into sustainable economic growth, with the confidence that such growth will not occur at the expense of the territory's environmental integrity.
[Translation]
However, it must be recognized that existing legislation needs to be improved and modernized to bring Yukon in line with recent changes in other regions of Canada and to ensure its continued success. I am convinced that this bill does exactly that.
I would now like to speak to the Nunavut Waters and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act portion of this bill. Consultations on proposed amendments began in 2012. At the request of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, representatives of the governments of Canada and Nunavut and the Nunavut Water Board formed a working group to develop and discuss amendments to the provisions related to water use in Nunavut.
That being said, we are proposing the following amendments to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. We propose that fines be increased for those who provide false or misleading information and obstruct or fail to comply with the direction of an inspector to ensure compliance. We also propose that: administrative monetary penalties be established; the length of validity for licenses issued by the Nunavut Water Board be revised; the federal minister be provided with legislative authority to enter into agreements relating to security with Inuit, the applicant, and the Nunavut Water Board, which will help address a long-standing problem of double bonding; fixed beginning-to-end timelines be set for decisions on water licenses; and certain water license reviews be subjected to cost recovery.
[English]
I'm sure many of you will recognize that the types of changes proposed in Bill S-6 emulate those very changes that we made earlier, and you approved, in Bill C-15 and Bill C-47.
We look forward to your review of the legislation, and I believe that we all share a common goal: to have the North as an equal participant in our country's future and giving northerners the opportunities and legislative framework that will allow them to look to the future with optimism, equipped with the tools to ensure they can achieve that status.
I will be pleased to answer any questions that committee members may have. As you indicated, Mr. Chair, I'm accompanied by officials and, if need be, I will not hesitate to ask them to clarify my answers.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister, for that presentation. In your remarks you mentioned Senator Patterson from Nunavut and Senator Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories. Unfortunately they're both travelling with a committee at this time so they're not able to be here, but they certainly have been key to a lot of what has taken place.
However, we have with us the senator from the Yukon, Senator Lang, who has also been heavily involved. Senator Lang, I'm going to begin with you. As sponsor of the bill you may have a few words, and then you can begin the questioning.
Senator Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you giving me the latitude to say a few words at the beginning, because I think I should make a couple of observations on the importance of this legislation to Yukon, Nunavut and the North.
I would like to start by expressing my thanks to the staff of the department. I know the staff has worked very hard to put this legislation together, to have it meet the objectives in the Yukon, and I don't think that should go unnoticed.
Also, Mr. Minister, I realize how much work you've put into this over the period of time you've been in the portfolio.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned that eight pieces of legislation have been presented to Parliament over the course of the last number of years with respect to the North and the various legislative requirements to meet the objectives of devolving various authorities and recognizing other aspects of the North. I want to say that this has not gone unnoticed in the North. We enjoy being a national priority, quite frankly. We are very fortunate that the Government of Canada has put us on the national agenda so many times.
The other point I would like to make that has not been pointed out is that along with the devolution for the Northwest Territories, we have seen resource revenue sharing agreements for the Northwest Territories and Yukon. This has been a major step forward toward ``self-determination,'' if you like, for the various regions of the North, in particular the Northwest Territories and Yukon in view of their political devolution. I think it's very important.
The other aspect I want to leave on the record is that since the YESAA legislation that was presented by the previous government back in 2002-03, the Government of Yukon and the Yukon have experienced an extremely productive economic time over that period. I would just point out that this past month, in August, our unemployment rate was 3.4 per cent, one of the lowest in the country. I think that speaks for itself from the point of view of our future and what we can contribute to Canada.
I want to get back to the bill itself. I think it's very important that, as the chair pointed out, Senator Patterson is travelling with another committee but is the senator for Nunavut. I know he's going to be able to speak to that section of the bill and inform all members of the committee of the importance of that particular section and what it will do for Nunavut's future because these are very important pieces of legislation to lay the foundation for our economic and environmental future.
Over the course of this past summer, as a senator, I've had the opportunity to have a number of meetings with stakeholders back in Yukon, as far as the sections that pertain to Yukon, in conjunction with our member of Parliament. I want to say at the outset that there's a common cause here amongst all the stakeholders. Everybody realizes how important it is that this legislation be modernized and updated with respect to where we are in our economic future.
We've had 10 years of experience of the current legislation and it has worked well in many respects. The minister pointed that out in his opening remarks. The reality of it is that — and I think it's important for the rest of the country to realize — First Nations in our part of the world are involved in the actual process itself. There are nominations to the board. They are actually part of the process. It has worked out well because when a decision is taken, generally there is common acceptance amongst the community, in all demographics of the community, that fair and diligent processes have been undertaken.
I want to make one other point. In my discussions over the course of the summer, a number of concerns were raised, although common cause is there for the passage of this legislation. One area that has been raised is the Council of Yukon First Nations, and that is the question of their authority versus the bill itself. I have a general question.
The point that has been made to me is that some feel — some feel; I don't know if there's any justification — that amendments to the act undermine the principles of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement that is the legislative foundation for the Yukon Indian land claim. I'd like to have you, as the minister, comment on this criticism and whether or not there's any justification for it.
Mr. Valcourt: Thank you, senator. I, too, have heard some of these concerns or some people stating that these changes would make the umbrella agreement kind of come in second place, as if it displaces the obligations.
There is absolutely no justification for such concern because if there were a conflict between the act and the agreement, we must make it clear that the land claim agreement, the Yukon umbrella agreement, continues to remain the law of the land in the Yukon.
Not only are these land claim agreements enshrined under the Constitution, but there are also several places throughout the umbrella agreement itself, through the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, that have reaffirmed that. I think this concern stems from the fact that when you look at Bill S-6, you don't see, for example, section 4 of the entire bill. So they look at Bill S-6, and there is nothing there that seems to affirm what I just said, but what you have to understand is that Bill S-6 will now become part of YESAA. Section 4 is very clear and has not been changed. It stays there. I quote: ``In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a final agreement and this Act, the agreement prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.'' So First Nations and all Yukoners should be assured that the umbrella agreement remains, the law of the land, and that no section of Bill S-6 infringes any of the provisions of the Yukon umbrella agreement. They are in conformity with the intent and spirit of the original land claim agreement.
Senator Lang: Chair, I just want to follow up another area. I appreciate that reaffirmation on the record here because I know that is of concern to some back home. Hopefully that will bring some comfort to those who perhaps have a misunderstanding of the bill.
The other area that has been raised is the question of delegation and the section that allows the minister to delegate certain authorities to the Government of Yukon Territory upon notification to the Council of Yukon First Nations.
Perhaps you could outline to us in general terms what the actual powers are and how limited those powers are with respect to that authority to devolve.
Second, maybe you could comment with respect to the First Nations' interest with respect to their land claim and their settlement lands and how any delegation might affect that.
Mr. Valcourt: First of all, as you know, this delegation of powers has to be understood within the general northern strategy of this government. You said earlier, senator, that for the first time the North has become a priority. Prime Minister Harper and his government have made the North a priority. We have a northern strategy, and one of the elements of the northern strategy is governance and giving the powers to northerners in their own territories. So the ultimate goal is probably to give northerners all of the tools and powers they need, like a province, to be the architects and the masters of their own destiny and future within a strong Canada.
In terms of the delegation of power, not for Canada to withdraw but to empower even more in the future the territories, we propose that these federal powers of this minister — not Fisheries and not the other departments, but this minister — may be delegated to a minister of the Yukon government. As I said, it has to be understood in the sense that this is to allow when and if desirable on the part of the government of the Yukon and with the consent of Canada, of course, the ability to delegate those powers. They effect in no way the fundamental spirit of the umbrella agreement, because it will still be a co-managed framework where First Nations, the Government of the Yukon and Yukoners will participate.
I think it has to be seen as a promise and a hope of even more self-determination and self-government powers on the part of that territory — bringing it even closer to provincial status. That's how I see it.
Senator Lang: On that particular subject, when we talk about that clause and the delegation looking into the future as best we can, in view of the fact that corrections are being made in the process through this legislation, do you see any delegation of authority in the immediate future, or are we really putting this clause in for the purposes of five, eight or ten years down the road that, if there is a requirement for a delegation, the minister of the day can work with the Government of the Yukon and all the stakeholders to do such a delegation?
Mr. Valcourt: My answer is no, there is no immediate plan to delegate anything. To test the veracity of my statement, I can refer to the recent devolution to the Northwest Territories where some stakeholders at the government level in the Northwest Territories were asking for the delegation of certain of these powers, which we have refused, because these powers, duties and functions that may be delegated — whether time limits, environmental assessments or administrative powers — there has to be our understanding that, indeed, the capacity and the best interests of all beneficiaries under the land claim agreement and the residents of that territory are utmost. That has to be the priority.
So, no, there are no plans right now to delegate any of these powers. But when the time comes to consider a request for the delegation of one or more of these powers, then at least we will have the legislative authority to do it.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks, minister, for being with us. You've been here quite frequently in what is becoming a process of nation building. It's been mentioned in this committee that the three acts add up to a significant step in nation building.
I also would like to point out that you have in the sponsor, Senator Lang, one of the most passionate promoters of the Yukon, and we admire him greatly for doing that. He has been a real push for this bill.
I have two questions, the first of which is to some extent a corollary to Senator Lang's question. In the case of Bill C-15 with the Northwest Territories, there was concern among certain Aboriginal groups that they would lose their power to participate adequately at a regional level or sub-regional level in the environmental review process. Could you comment on that issue in the context of this act and the other two territories? Is there a concern about adequate participation, particularly Aboriginal participation, in environmental review processes at the regional level?
Mr. Valcourt: To my knowledge, the concern you have heard about the Northwest Territories restructuring the boards into one board is not an issue we have heard in the Yukon because the question does not apply. The different powers granted under the umbrella agreement and to the First Nations that have concluded settlements are not at issue in any of these clauses of Bill S-6. To my knowledge, that concern has not been raised or expressed in the Yukon.
Senator Mitchell: I wanted to clarify that for the record.
The other thing is that clearly the act is designed in part to speed up and make the environmental review process more efficient. One way it's doing that is to apply time limits. In the case of YESAB, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, there will be 16 months from the start of the presentation of a project proposal to screen the project and then 18 months to conclude the project's review, the responsibility for that being placed upon the board's panel. Could you give us some idea of how much that represents in terms of the overall time limit that's generally been utilized in processing environmental reviews in the past?
Mr. Valcourt: It is a good question, and the stats are there. By the way, you can find them on the website of the board. For example, some people say these time limits will prevent those boards or panels from doing their work. Let us look at the experience of designated offices, for example. If you look at the statistics, the average adequacy stage, for example, determination by the designated offices, is 26 days. Now we're talking about nine months, so there will be plenty of time.
We must all acknowledge that we have not had that many projects go through the environmental assessment. But if you look, for example, at the Quartz Projects, from January 1, 2010 to 2014, the average adequacy stage there was 25 days again. It is 23 days in the case of the Placer Projects.
I will ask Ms. Shannon to detail more, but the experience to date is that the time limits imposed in S-6 are well beyond what the experience shows has been the experience up to now.
Tara Shannon, Director, Resource Policy and Programs, Northern Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: As the minister stated, at the designated office level, they operate well within the nine-month legislated beginning-to-end time limit period proposed in the bill. At the executive committee level, the higher level of assessment of which there have been only seven projects since 2003, they work within the legislated time limit period. That includes the adequacy phase, which is at the beginning of the process and is essentially whether the proposal is complete for assessment and consideration.
Senator Ringuette: How many members are there on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board? How many would be nominated by the Council of Yukon First Nations and how many by your department?
Mr. Valcourt: We have three members on that board. One is appointed by the Government of the Yukon, one by the council and one by the federal government.
Senator Ringuette: So there are two nominated by the federal government and one by Yukon?
Mr. Valcourt: One is nominated by the federal government, one is nominated by the Government of the Yukon, and one is nominated by the Council of Yukon First Nations.
Senator Ringuette: The three different entities are represented individually.
Mr. Valcourt: Yes, and they appoint.
Senator Ringuette: My other question is more general in the sense that you indicated in your presentation that the parties have agreed to 70 recommendations and five required legislative amendments, and these include the non- application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, ensuring that the Yukon Environmental and Socio- economic Assessment Act continues as the only environmental process in the Yukon. That is on the one hand. Further in your presentation you say that, however, existing legislation needs to be improved and modernized to bring Yukon in line with recent changes in other regions in Canada and to ensure its continued success.
On the one hand, it's saying the recommendation is that the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will not be applicable, and then you're saying we need to bring the Yukon assessment act up to what is happening in other regions in Canada, which means the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. I'm trying to reconcile what the real objective is here.
My other question is technical in nature. How will the changes to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act be different from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012? In other words, what are the discrepancies between the two?
Mr. Valcourt: First of all, the example I gave of one recommendation that required an amendment to make it clear that CEAA 2012 would not apply is because under the umbrella agreement it is clear that with this issue — the undertaking, the constitutional protection to the partners in the Yukon agreement — the environmental assessment will be made according to the provisions of the umbrella agreement, which called for YESAA, the legislation that was passed. This amendment ensures and makes clear that CEAA, which applies to the rest of Canada, does not apply in the Yukon. They have their own legislative framework for environmental assessment. That's the only purpose of this: Make it clear that YESAA continues to apply.
The second part of your question is on YESAA amendments, the changes to it, why CEAA doesn't apply but you bring in YESAA, the same provisions that you may find in this one. It is to ensure competitiveness and protect the future economic development of the Yukon on the same level playing field as south of 60, the Northwest Territories or in Nunavut because we find, since YESAA was adopted and implemented in the Yukon, the gross domestic product there has gone up way above the Canadian average for the last 10 years. But if you look at it since the changes have been brought to the regulatory environment south of 60, and now also in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, they are behind in terms of these improvements to the regulatory process, which promote investment, give more certainty, encourage more economic development while ensuring better protection of the environment. When, for example, we talk about increasing the fines, it is to show the importance of ensuring that these conditions attached to development are respectful of the environment. That's why we propose to increase the fines.
It's not cheaper to not protect the environment in the Yukon than in other places. The playing field is being levelled for all parts of Canada.
Senator Ringuette: I suppose that your department, minister, has made the comparison between the two environmental assessment acts. Maybe I'm presuming right or maybe I'm presuming wrong, but if there is such a comparison from your department, could we have a copy of that?
Mr. Valcourt: Sure.
Do we know whether this document exists?
Ms. Shannon: There are versions of it.
Mr. Valcourt: Sure, senator, we will be pleased to see what we have on hand and provide it to this committee.
Senator Seidman: With regard to YESAA, the proposed amendments would allow you to give binding policy direction to the board. Would you please explain to us under what circumstances this would be applied, and does it in any way restrict or expand any duties or powers that exist under YESAA?
Mr. Valcourt: No. First of all, with these policy directions, it has to be understood that what is aimed at is that they would ensure a common understanding between the government and the board and help to reduce uncertainty and delays in environmental assessment decision making.
Bill S-6 makes it clear that any policy direction issued must be consistent with the umbrella final agreement and the individual land claims agreements. Policy direction may only be given with respect to the exercise or performance of the board's powers, duties or functions under the act. Policy direction cannot be used to change the environmental assessment process itself. It cannot impede the board's ability to perform its legal duties or expand or restrict the powers of the board.
Because the board is an independent body, policy direction cannot interfere with active or completed reviews. However, the board, as we know, is an advisory board that conducts reviews and makes decisions, and decision bodies, including the minister, may accept or reject or vary the board's recommendations when issuing a decision document. What we have to be sure of and understand clearly is that what is envisaged is to allow policy direction to ensure that the Aboriginal rights and the treaty rights of First Nations and beneficiaries under the umbrella agreement are protected.
Let me give you an example. If we were to conclude an agreement with one of the nations that has not yet settled an agreement, then a policy direction would issue to the board saying, ``Listen, from now on, they are at the same level as those who have settled claims, so you treat them as such.'' This is the kind of thing that is envisaged.
Another could be that with technology developing and progressing at the rate it is, we could give a policy direction that from now on, if you're going to do an environmental assessment, you should consider this as a tool that applies to help protect the environment. These are the kinds of policy directions that are envisaged, but, again, not at all to interfere with the environmental assessment process itself.
Senator Seidman: I think that's pretty clear, and thank you very much for that very explanatory response.
I'll ask another question about the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, and that has to do with the water licenses. I'm curious about the ``life of project'' water licenses. How does that differ from what is currently available? Could you just explain that concept?
Mr. Valcourt: Currently, as you may know, the maximum period for a type A licence is 25 years, and the proposed amendments would eliminate the need for a future review of water licences unless there is a substantive change in the project or the use of waters relating to the project. This allows the board to give the type A licence for the life of the project. Of course, the licence would be granted for the life of the project. That could be 25 years, 30 years, 10 years. The life of the project could be 55 years, 70 years. The board would make that determination.
This would prevent spinning your wheels after 10 years if no changes have occurred. Don't forget that the board is always empowered, because if a proponent, for example, with a type A licence were not respecting the terms of the licence, first of all, we have inspectors that check, but, if there were significant change, the board, on its own volition or at the request of anybody, could still bring that licensee in and say, ``Whoa, whoa.'' I think that's to avoid having to go through an environmental assessment when it's not necessary because it is costly and it impedes the proper exploitation of those resources, provided, of course, that the conditions of the licence are being met.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, minister.
Senator Wallace: Thank you, minister. As you point out, the major part of the government's strategy is to encourage economic growth throughout Canada, in this case in particular, in the North. I know that's near and dear to Senator Lang's heart.
In answering one of Senator Ringuette's questions, you spoke about economic growth being encouraged in the North by levelling the playing field with what exists elsewhere in the country. Obviously, private sector investment can go anywhere, and so it's very competitive among the different regions.
With Bill S-6, is there anything in particular you would point to that would further encourage this increased economic growth in the North or in the Yukon?
Mr. Valcourt: Indeed. I think that all of the provisions will achieve that purpose, but among those, the time limit is important for investors. It is also important for the beneficiaries, those who benefit from the jobs and the return on those investments on the ground. On settled lands, for example, they get the benefit of their own resources. We are tempted, sometimes, to think that we have these investors from south of 60 who come to the North to exploit and take all of the benefits of those resources and run away with them. No, no, these are often on settled lands. It means that they are the beneficiaries under those agreements and do get the return. They get not only the jobs but also the business opportunities that arise from these developments.
The time limit, I think, is helpful to everyone. The smoothness that will result from the several changes to the process of environmental assessment in the Yukon will, overall, benefit Yukoners because now they will be, as I said, at the same level as the other jurisdictions south of 60 and also in the north.
Overall, I think that as we can see happening in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories right now, everyone in Canada, but those regions especially, stands to benefit immensely from these regulatory changes.
Senator Wallace: As I understand it, and you referred to this in your opening comments, there were extensive consultations with different groups prior to putting pen to paper and drafting Bill S-6. I understand First Nations were very prominent in those consultations, the Government of Nunavut, the Government of Yukon, of course, and the private sector. Did you find that there were many adjustments or accommodations made in the drafting of the bill to provide for those concerns and make it address issues that the various groups had?
Mr. Valcourt: Those are very good questions because we seldom have the opportunity to outline and lay out what these consultations result in. Are you just going through the motions for the sake of it without really changing anything? With the consultation process, if I look at the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, YESAA, several changes have been made from the feedback from consultations on the draft legislative proposal. It has resulted in a number of accommodations to improve the final form and functions of the bill.
For example, let's take time limits on environmental assessments. The time limits could have started either when a proposal is submitted to the board or only after the board has determined that it has sufficient information to begin the assessment. Consistent with the principle of beginning-to-end time limits, the bill starts the time limit as soon as a proposal is submitted, and if the board requires supplementary information, the time taken by the proponent to provide the information is excluded from the time limit. That is as a result of representations by industry and the Government of the Yukon.
If you look at other examples on the renewal of amendments, when the bill was drafted, the first draft included a provision that enables an authorization to be renewed or amended without going through another assessment unless there has been a significant change to the project since it was first assessed. Originally the provision was drafted to allow the board to determine whether there had been a significant change; but following these consultations, because of the Yukon First Nations and the Government of the Yukon, the provision was redrafted to allow decision bodies and not the board to make the determination. When there's more than one decision body, they must consult one another and determine whether a new assessment is required. That was not there.
These are the kinds of changes that were brought about because of the consultations, whether it was on the terms and conditions, whether it was the board member terms. These changes were brought to the draft. For example, during the initial consultation, the White River First Nation and Liard First Nationraised three issues that were recommended by the five-year review but were not included in the first draft legislative proposal in July 2013. These modifications were included in the second draft in February 2014, minimizing or eliminating the application of CEAA. That was their point and that's where it comes from. They included the concept of reasonably foreseeable activities in the scoping of cumulative effects. This is something we hear often about. That was not there, now it's in. They included requiring a designated office to take into consideration the need for effects monitoring when conducting an assessment. This provision is included in subclause 9(1) of the bill. That was not there.
It is important for Canadians to know that these exercises and consultations do bear a lot in our drafting the legislation and presenting the bill so that we get the benefit of the consultation through these accommodations that are being made to make it work better in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.
Senator Wallace: As you pointed out — it was a further question I had, but you've answered it — what role the First Nations played in these consultations and whether any specific accommodations were made to address their issues. You've touched on that, so that's very interesting. Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, minister. I have a few quick technical questions, as well as a substantive one, for you.
When Bill C-15 was passed, a transfer of resources to the territories was planned. Do the two agreements involve a transfer or an addition of resources? When responsibilities are transferred, resources usually follow. We know that, when the federal government transfers responsibilities to the provinces, the first question that is asked is how much that will cost and who will foot the bill.
Mr. Valcourt: No responsibilities are currently being transferred because the legislation is already in place. This is just an amendment to the legislation. So no jurisdiction is being transferred from the federal government to the Government of Yukon. Therefore, no funds are accompanying the bill.
The bill could have an indirect impact on the operating budgets of various panels or offices, but that is planned either under the transfers made directly to the Government of Yukon or to the office by the federal government, on a regular basis. So there are no costs associated with those provisions of Bill S-6.
Senator Boisvenu: Does the agreement with Nunavut on lands and water include marine navigation or does it strictly pertain to the use of water as a raw material?
Mr. Valcourt: I will venture to say that it is strictly related to water and not to waterways.
Senator Boisvenu: My substantive question is the following. With Mr. Harper, it is clear that Canada is seeking northern autonomy. The Prime Minister's frequent trips have shown us that international recognition of Canada's autonomy in the north is very important. How is this agreement in keeping with that quest for autonomy? If many responsibilities are delegated to the territories, how is that in keeping with our strategy, as a government, to exercise that international claim?
Mr. Valcourt: Frankly, Bill S-6 does not aim to confirm Canada's Arctic sovereignty or make any related claims. The Yukon territory is very well delimited and is not being challenged. So I do not think that other countries are making any land claims.
Of course, in the context of the Prime Minister's northern strategy, we continue to seek and assert our sovereignty over the continental shelf of our country, Canada. You will recall that, last fall, the Canadian government, as part of its efforts to establish its continental shelf, decided to submit some of the data to the United Nations organization, which is considering the issue. But the North Pole portion — where Santa Claus lived according to our childhood stories — is in Canada. The Prime Minister gave clear instructions for scientific research to continue, so that we can lay claim to the entire Canadian continental shelf.
These are ongoing efforts. What is important today for Bill S-6 is to ensure that people who live in Canada's north. . . On a trip to northern Canada, during the Prime Minister's tour, an Inuit of a certain age told me that the best way to protect and assert Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic is to live there as a Canadian. So ensuring the economic, social and cultural development of northerners is a great way to assert our sovereignty. The best way to show our sovereignty over the whole northern territory is to live good social and economic lives in the north and protect our culture there, as that is part of the Canadian identity.
[English]
Senator Lang: For the record, I'd like to clarify a couple of aspects of the legislation the way it is now and also speak to some of the changes specifically for Senator Ringuette's information.
The board has seven members — three on the executive committee and four additional members. The appointments are between the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Government of Yukon and, obviously, the federal government. That's the way it works. You have an executive committee comprised of three members and an additional four members on the board. Is that not right? I just want to confirm that for the record so you understand. Proposed subsection 8(3) of the bill outlines that, for your information.
I want to go a little bit further and talk about certainty. I spoke at the beginning about how well Yukon has been doing with respect to the general economy, but I have to say this: At this time, there are some concerns because of the lack of certainty contained in the present legislation. That's why this bill is before us and why it's so important that there be relatively speedy passage of the bill. In conjunction with this, regulations will have to be drafted to bring these amendments into effect. This will not happen overnight, and time, in some cases, is not our friend when it comes to those who would invest.
The other point I would make about this bill is that it not only applies to the mining community but also to municipalities, the highways department, other elements of the government and other elements of the economy in Yukon. It's very important that there be clear and defined guidelines and timelines so that proponents, whether it be for a sewage treatment plant or for tailings for a mine, know what the rules are.
Another point I would like to make, which the minister touched on and I would like to hear his comments about, is on proposed subsection 49.1(1). This is very important to Yukon and to other parts of the North, I'm sure: defining ``significant'' in the requirement for a new assessment. We have experienced, for two different mines, work stoppages because new assessments were required, although it has not changed anything with respect to the environmental requirements that have to be met.
We need to have flexibility so that common sense can prevail when those situations arise. We've experienced the stoppages and that, in turn, has created uncertainty for future investors. They see this type of situation occurring when there's no need for it and it's expensive for everybody, most importantly for Yukon and the people of Yukon because it means jobs. Could I ask the minister to comment on 49.1(1), because that is one issue that we are facing currently in Yukon?
Mr. Valcourt: Yes, senator. As you alluded to, currently under YESAA, renewing a licence or a permit is enough. It is enough for the board to require an existing project to undergo a new environmental assessment even when there has not been any change to the project. To implement the principle of one project one assessment, Bill S-6 would add a provision, the provision referred to, senator, to YESAA that would require a new assessment of an existing project only if it has undergone a significant change.
This provision clarifies that the renewal or amendment of an authorization does not require the project to undergo another environmental assessment unless there has been a significant change to the project since it was first assessed.
A similar provision exists in the NUPPAA, which this committee studied — section 145 of the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. A similar provision also exists in B.C. in the Environmental Assessment Act of British Columbia.
The Chair: I understand, minister, that you have to leave soon. Is that correct?
Mr. Valcourt: Yes.
[Translation]
How much time do I have left? We do not have enough time.
[English]
When you're in good company, time goes fast.
The Chair: If Senator Lang can get one more question in and Senator Ringuette as well, who will be fairly brief, would that be all right, minister?
Mr. Valcourt: Absolutely.
Senator Lang: For the record, and I believe the minister may be aware of this, concerns have been expressed during the course of the discussions over the summer that there's no provision for another review built into the amendments, where the old legislation contained a requirement for a review after five years. Perhaps the minister can comment on why it isn't in this bill and what alternatives there are for future reviews if it's necessary to look at the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Valcourt: As they say, the bill, or the legislation in question, is decently fine-tuned.
[English]
If in the future there is any need for changes to the act, why wait five years? Any law is always subject to amendments. When the need comes, if it comes, then it will be reviewed at that time.
In thinking of taxpayers and Canadians, what's the point of legislating a review of something that works well? If there's no problem, no issue and everything is fine, why would we take taxpayers' dollars and spend an enormous amount of money to carry out a review that is not required? This government is very particular about wanting to protect taxpayers' dollars. We simply refused to put this clause in the bill because it is not necessary. If changes are required because of a change in circumstances or something happens, then Parliament is always there and whatever government is in place will want to act in the best interests of Canada and Canadians. If there is a need for changes, they will be considered at that time. That is the reason why it is not in there.
Senator Lang: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I can understand Senator Lang and the desire for certainty in the future. However, going from one end of the spectrum to the life-of-the-project licence that could be, as the minister said, 25, 30 years and so forth without any review, we all know that there's constant evolution in regard to environmental equipment and technology and so forth that could be part of conditional licensing.
I can understand the desire to have greater certainty, but I'm puzzled by the fact that one could have a licence for 25, 30 years without any review or needed condition with regard to environmental protection due to the constant, rapid evolution of environmental technology and equipment and so forth. I'm just voicing a concern here.
Mr. Valcourt: I just want to reassure Senator Ringuette. What you have to appreciate and understand is that the board, at all times, will continue to be able to make amendments to the licences at any time during the life of the project based on intervener submissions, public concern or their own initiative. That power is in the board, and a life project is not a licence to not respect the conditions or adapt to changing circumstances. That is the role of the board. It is there to ensure that this happens, and, as I said, whether based on intervener submissions or public concern or their own initiative, they can always make amendments to any licence.
The Chair: There are no other questioners.
Minister Valcourt, thank you very much for appearing this morning. As usual, you bring to the committee very good explanations of all the questions, and we appreciate that very much. We appreciate your time. We know you're a busy person, so thank you very much. We'll do our best to carry on and get this bill through, as you've requested, as soon as we can. Thank you for appearing.
I'd like the members of the committee to stay for a minute because we have one item of business after the witnesses leave.
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Valcourt: Thank you, all.
The Chair: We have some changes that are happening with our committee. I'd like to give the floor to Senator Mitchell for a moment, please.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, chair. Effective today, Thursday, September 18, I am resigning my position as Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I do this with genuine sadness, consoled only by the fact that I will remain on this committee, which is an outstanding committee. I'm not leaving this position for any reason other than this configuration of resources and travel times and availability of our caucus members, which means that I am available to be nominated for Deputy Chair of the Defence Committee, which would mean that I couldn't do this. It's not even a question of priorities. It's a question of pressures.
This has been a tremendously productive and happy experience for me. I've been part of a great committee that has done some great work. The three-year study on an energy strategy was in many respects groundbreaking, as was the study on hydrocarbon transportation safety and, almost literally ground-breaking, the study that we haven't finished yet on Call Before You Dig.
I want to thank the clerk, Lynn Gordon, and the Library of Parliament research staff, Marc LeBlanc and Sam Banks, who have done unbelievably good work. This is a complex subject area, broadly expansive in the many topics that we touched upon. They have done remarkable work, under great pressure at times and great stress, and so I congratulate them and thank them very much.
I also want to recognize my legislative assistant, Kyle Johnson, and the chair's legislative assistant, Nicole Power, who work diligently and intensely behind the scenes to make this committee as productive as it has been.
I want to thank Hansard and the interpreters who have put up with the speed with which I speak. And I want to thank, of course, the remarkable membership on this committee. It has been a great group of people, with great commitment, and we have, together, done great work.
I acknowledge in that light as well and thank the other two members of the steering committee, Senator Patterson, who is current, and Senator Lang, who I worked with before that.
I want to acknowledge the work of the predecessor of this committee chair, Senator Angus, who was excellent to work with as well. I especially want to acknowledge the relationship and the work and the camaraderie that I've had with Senator Neufeld, who has been an outstandingly good chair and remarkably easy to work with, very respectful of both sides of this committee and very respectful of my role in the committee. I can't say enough about that.
With that, I'm sad and sorry, but at least I will be here to continue working with a great group of people on a great committee. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mitchell. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you for your tenacity in your work on this committee. It's great to work with you, a person from Western Canada, from Alberta, where all the major oil and gas happens in Canada. It fits well with this committee and I've enjoyed working with you as deputy chair and with your staff also.
One thing about it is you will still be here and we will still have to put up with you, and it will be fun doing that as it has been up until now. I appreciate very much your input to everything that we've been able to accomplish, at least since I got here almost six years ago.
With that, we now have a vacancy and I'm ready to receive a motion for a nomination.
Senator Mitchell: I will nominate Senator Paul Massicotte.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? Thank you.
It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Mitchell that the Honourable Senator Massicotte be named the deputy chair of this committee. Senator Massicotte is not able to be here today, but the clerk assures me that in his absence we can do this and he has consented to the nomination.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
(The committee adjourned.)