Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 15 - Evidence - September 23, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 23, 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 4:58 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'm a senator from British Columbia and 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.
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 to introduce themselves. First, we have a new deputy chair, Senator Paul Massicotte. We said farewell to our last deputy chair, Senator Mitchell, last week.
Actually, you weren't here. We appointed you in absence and everybody voted and said you would make a good deputy chair. So you are now in the chair and will have to accept some of the responsibilities, sir, and that will be great.
Without further ado, the deputy chair, Senator Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Black: Doug Black from Alberta.
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, also from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Lang: Dan Lang, Yukon.
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
The Chair: I will also introduce our staff, beginning with our clerk on the left, Lynn Gordon, and Sam Banks, our Library of Parliament analyst.
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 to the clerk.
Last Thursday, we heard from the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and his officials.
Today, it gives me great pleasure to welcome, during the first portion of our meeting, Premier Darrell Pasloski from Yukon and Julie Stinson, Development Assessment Process Manager.
Premier, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule and being here with us tonight. We look forward to your presentation, and then we'll take some questions. The floor is yours, sir.
Hon. Darrell Pasloski, Premier of Yukon: Good afternoon and thank you, chairman, for this opportunity to be here with the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, really for the invitation to be here. I much appreciate it.
We are here today to convey our support for Bill S-6 as it pertains to the proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA.
I would also like to introduce to you Julie Stinson. Ms. Stinson was part of the Yukon government team that participated in the review of YESAA. She has experience with this legislation and is familiar with all aspects of how it is implemented day-to-day in Yukon.
This afternoon, I hope to broaden your appreciation of Yukon's perspective regarding the benefits of amending this act. Last year marked 10 years since the devolution of responsibility for lands and resources from the Government of Canada to the Government of Yukon. Devolution marked a turning point in Yukon's recent history, and I'd like to add that the federal government calls it devolution; from my perspective, I prefer to call it evolution.
In that pivotal moment, we set out on a road to self-determination and managing our own resources. The benefits of devolution for Yukon are tremendous because, truly, what is good for Yukon is good for Canada.
When the Yukon Act came into effect on April 1, 2003, Yukon gained law-making authority with respect to the vast majority of our natural resources. This has enabled us to develop sustainable management regimes and work cooperatively with First Nations and industry.
Since 2003, we have experienced steady prosperity, and private sector contributions to our economy have soared. Our population has increased for the tenth consecutive year. And 2013 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Umbrella Final Agreement.
Coming into force in 1993, the Umbrella Final Agreement is a framework for individual Yukon First Nations to negotiate their land claims agreements. To date, 11 of Yukon's 14 First Nations have modern-day treaties and self- government agreements. This represents almost half of the modern First Nation treaties and self-government agreements that exist in Canada today.
For the past 10 years, Yukon has enjoyed a reputation for having one of the most advanced regulatory systems in Canada. Yukon's resource economy has grown since devolution, with the mining and mineral exploration sector continuing to expand and to develop.
That said, it is becoming increasingly clear that changes to this legislation before you today are essential in order for Yukon to remain a competitive place to do business.
As a requirement of Chapter 12 of the Umbrella Final Agreement, YESAA came into force on May 13, 2003. Federal, territorial and First Nation partners all play important roles in ensuring that projects undertaken in Yukon are in accordance with the principles that foster economic benefits. Equally important, as partners we ensure the protection of the ecological and social systems on which communities and their residents and societies in general depend. I'm confident that the proposed amendments align with these values.
This act applies throughout Yukon as a single assessment, a neutral process conducted at arm's length from governments. Over the last decade, this process has demonstrated a high level of transparency, with decisions and actions made available to the public through the Yukon online registry system.
However, as with most new legislation, YESAA requires some amendments. These mostly minor amendments will enable YESAA to continue to serve our territory well into the future. When Canada pursued amendments to the act, they engaged with the Yukon government, the Council of Yukon First Nations, individual Yukon First Nations and the YESAA board. The changes that have been tabled are the result of the close work of these parties, as was mandated by the YESAA five-year review process. These changes were also informed by the federal Action Plan to Improve Northern Regulatory Regimes.
During the review phase, Canada asked the Government of Yukon to provide input into several amendments that focus on improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the assessment regime.
Before proceeding with the Yukon government's input, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the issues raised by some of Yukon's First Nations. The issues they raise matter to our government because we see First Nations as key partners in responsible resource development. We've learned that when we work together, as we have with mines located on settlement lands and oil and gas development in the north, all Yukoners benefit.
I won't speak for First Nations, who will be presenting on their own behalf in the coming days, but I do understand that they have some concerns around both the content and the process of these amendments.
While the consultation adequacy question is a matter between First Nations and Canada, Yukon has worked with all governments to build support around these legislative amendments in the interest of strengthening Yukon's progressive and comprehensive regulatory system.
For our part, the Yukon government feels it was adequately consulted during this phase, and our feedback and comments were taken into consideration. Together, these changes stand to benefit Yukon because they focus on the following areas: clarification of roles and responsibilities; cost-effective and efficient processes; and the value and timeliness of the assessment process.
Let's take a closer look at the renewal clause, for instance. Environmental assessments are not meant to be repeated every time a minor change is made to a project or when an authorization is renewed. Mr. Chair, it's a time-consuming and inefficient use of taxpayer dollars to force projects back into assessment when no significant changes to the project have transpired. This amendment clarifies that the decision body will determine whether a project requires reassessment. In the case of settlement land, that means that the First Nation is the decision body.
This means that unless a project changes in a significant way, a further successive environmental assessment is not required.
Amendments also address the issue of time limits in both adequacy and assessment stages, which are essential to ensuring competitiveness with other jurisdictions and economic growth for Yukon. Time limits on both stages create certainty for the proponent, assessors, investors and decision makers. This is consistent with other federal and provincial environmental legislation.
We also concur with Canada's proposed amendment to give the federal minister the ability to issue binding policy direction to the YESAA board in those rare situations when the power is deemed necessary. Obviously, any policy direction issued would be consistent with the UFA and individual land claim agreements. Policy direction could never be used to change the environmental assessment process itself. Policy direction can only be given with respect to the exercise or performance of the board's powers, duties or functions under the act. This amendment is consistent with similar legislation in Canada.
We also support the recommendation that the federal minister may delegate any of their YESAA powers, duties or functions to the territorial minister. Assessment of proposed projects is key to the identification and understanding of any potentially adverse environmental or socio-economic effects. The purpose of requesting this delegation clause is to allow for administrative efficiencies. Examples of where administrative delegation might be used are in establishing assessment districts, naming a community where designated offices are located, requesting a panel review of a project, and establishing the number of members on the board.
Delegation is supported in Canada's Northern Strategy and the pan-territorial northern vision that was updated by Canada's northern premiers earlier this month.
Honourable senators, collectively these amendments mark an important milestone as they are the culmination of years of hard work and meaningful consultation between all three levels of government that have been involved since the five-year review began.
Mr. Chair, it is important that the committee understand that, as partners, we have reached agreement on the overwhelming majority of recommendations.
As the decision body on the vast majority of projects that go through YESAA, the Yukon government supports a process that remains effective, fosters responsible resource development and establishes appropriate regulatory thresholds. This is what is required in order to keep Yukon competitive while also maintaining the uniqueness that we are all so proud of with our one-window, one-assessment process.
Yukon has gone through and continues to go through extraordinary changes, and all of this change has occurred in a relatively short period of time. It is important to review and amend legislation on a regular basis in order to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the population it serves. It is also essential that Yukon remain competitive with other jurisdictions while aiming to protect and promote the environmental and socio-economic well-being of the territory and its peoples.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I believe that the changes to this legislation that Canada has proposed will ensure that Yukon continues to be a progressive and responsible place to invest and to do business, and even a better place to live, raise a family and make a living.
I want to briefly thank our officials for all the work they have done through these processes. I also want to recognize the Yukon senator, the Honourable Dan Lang, and Yukon's member of Parliament, Ryan Leef — who I believe is here as well — for their leadership and support in this. I'd like to acknowledge that we have some of the First Nations chiefs present as well. With that, I thank the committee members for their time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, premier. We will now go to questions and I'll defer to the deputy chair, Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, premier, for being here today. Thank you, Ms. Stinson, for being with us and informing us as to your views on this proposed legislation.
Premier, I'd like to hear your comments. Recently the press, particularly the Whitehorse Daily Star, has been commenting on the fact that the Assembly of First Nations' regional chief has come out strongly against this proposed act. He said:
We basically support the position that was advanced by CYFN (Council of Yukon First Nations) that the changes are not in the best interest of Yukon First Nations. Local hearings might be a first step.
He goes on to say that his big concern relates to the fact that the federal government can give direction to the board and the board therefore loses independence to govern, as is obviously the intention of this whole devolution process.
Can you comment on that and clarify for us whether his comments are appropriate or if there's a misunderstanding of what the legislation says? How do the people of Yukon feel about the proposed bill?
Mr. Pasloski: Thank you, senator. What we have gone through, beginning in 2008, was initiation of a five-year review as was mandated by the legislation. That five-year review was concluded in 2012. For approximately two years, two more years of consultation occurred to ensure there remains consistency with our legislation as compared to other jurisdictions. Ensuring that consistency is very vital for our economy and our ability to attract investment, which will ultimately result in jobs for Yukoners and the ability to train people for skilled jobs here.
Through those processes, Yukon shared all of its information with all the parties, including CYFN.
If I could go back and quote from Minister Valcourt's presentation from last week, he talked about section 4 of YESAA, which still exists; but there were no amendments to it, so it doesn't exist within Bill S-6. Upon proclamation of this bill, this would form part of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. What the minister quoted was this: ``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.'' That means this act cannot supersede the final agreements that were reached with the settled First Nations.
When it comes to YESAA itself, there are seven board members, three members on the executive committee — one representative from First Nations, one from the Government of Canada, one from the Yukon Government — and there are also four board members. Of those four, two of them are nominated by First Nations, one by Canada and one by Yukon.
In this process, the First Nations have three of the seven positions on the board and that's guaranteeing their participation in YESAA.
Looking back at where we were in 2003 when this legislation came into being, it was cutting-edge. It was the envy of the rest of the country; one project, one assessment. Essentially, we were at the front of the bus. But in the last few years with the amendments and the changes that have occurred to environmental legislation throughout this country, we have found that we are now in a position where we are not as competitive with other jurisdictions. Quite frankly, we would like to get back on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions in this country.
Through these processes that began in 2008, there have literally been thousands of hours of consultation that have occurred and I cannot imagine the amount of money that went into that. I have to say that these amendments that we're talking about today are very important to all Yukoners. This is a process that talks not just about assessment of the resource industry. YESAA is our environmental assessment process that looks at all development projects, whether they are resource industry or whether we're building a new road or bridge or talking about a new hydro project. It affects all aspects of our life. Whether Yukoners know it or not, in some way this affects all Yukoners.
Senator Massicotte: Just as a follow-up, we received a list of all the meetings and dates of all the consultations you've had, and the Yukon First Nations are often listed as a participant either in a conference call or receiving materials. We're all a little bit surprised with the comments being made. They may have participated in the conference calls or received the materials, but they don't agree with the final conclusion.
Were these comments a surprise to you? Did they note earlier that this agreement is part of a clause of a new act, or is this something new to you, also?
Mr. Pasloski: It will be the responsibility of the First Nations to comment on what their issues are with the process. When it comes to the adequacy of consultation, as I mentioned, perhaps the best resource for that would be to talk to your officials who were engaged in the consultation process.
I know that we shared all of our information with the Yukon First Nations as well as the Yukon government. We feel that the process has occurred adequately, and we consulted with the Yukon government. We're comfortable with not only the level of consultation but also the accommodation that happened.
I know a number of amendments were made through the draft legislation and through the consultation as a result of the consultation. So we're very confident in our position as to the adequacy of the consultation.
Senator Lang: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a special welcome to the premier. I appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule, as the chairman indicated. Thank you also, Ms. Stinson. I also want to acknowledge MP Ryan Leef and our members from the First Nations in Yukon and Grand Chief Ruth Massie who is here tonight.
I think the fact that you have so many of your representatives here while deliberating on the bill reflects the interest from Yukon and the importance of this legislation. That doesn't happen often. It's important to realize this forms the economic and environmental foundation for Yukon, and we're fortunate that we have the First Nation community along with the general public involved in a process where, as I say, everybody's in the tent — no one's outside the tent when you look at the membership of the board and how it functions.
I also can tell you, as a senator from Yukon, the importance of this legislation for the amendments. We have lagged behind for the past number of years. I've heard numerous complaints about those who have had to go before the process and the importance of modernizing it. This legislation reflects a broad-based concept of what this legislation should look like going into the future.
I just want to correct something for the record. Back home there has been some criticism of the fact that this bill was first introduced in the Senate. I should point out for the record that over the last five or six years, over 60 government bills has been presented in the Senate prior to the House of Commons, so this is not uncommon. I wanted to put that on the record.
Over the course of the last summer, MP Ryan Leef and I had a number of meetings with respect to this bill with the stakeholders, including the Council of Yukon First Nations. One area that came up was the granting of the authority by the minister to delegate certain powers and functions to the Government of Yukon once the Council of Yukon First Nations had been notified. Some statements have been made that this is an infringement of the Umbrella Final Agreement in respect of this particular section.
Can you explain to us why this section is important for the basis of the legislation? How can you see this legislation being utilized in the future? If delegation is requested, how would you envisage such a request being put to the Government of Canada — for the minister for such a delegation?
Mr. Pasloski: Thank you, Senator Lang. I would like to begin by saying that the delegation of authority is itself a permissive amendment. As Minister Valcourt mentioned last week, as well, there is no delegation that is being contemplated at this time, either by the federal government or by the territorial government.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it would allow for administrative efficiencies. Quite simply, the authorities are quite limited in that delegation, if it were to occur. For example, if you were to look at the YESAA regulations — and I could use an example of activity thresholds — regulations cannot be delegated to the territorial government; they are under Governor-in-Council.
What has occurred to this point and what will occur going forward is that YESAA will remain a co-managed process. As I also mentioned, First Nation participation is guaranteed with one of three members of the executive committee and three of seven members of the YESAA board.
Regarding delegation, I talked about devolution or perhaps evolution. This is supported by Canada's Northern Strategy and the northern territories' A Northern Vision. Any time we devolve responsibility and bring it closer to home — closer to the people — this has proven to be a very good thing.
I would maybe speak for a minute regarding what has happened since the evolution or the devolution to Yukon of the management of the land, resources and the water. We've seen tremendous growth in our economy. In the past decade, we have seen positive growth every year in our population; in fact, our population has increased by approximately 22 per cent. We've seen growth in our real GDP every year. Most years in the last decade, we have been above the national average.
This delegation, devolution or evolution has certainly worked for Yukon, and I'm excited for the Northwest Territories as they begin their process as well, and as they sign their devolution agreement in April.
As for the future, as I mentioned, senator, there is at this time no contemplation of delegation by this government or by the federal government. But I do foresee in the future, if this were to come to fruition, that prior to such a delegation occurring, I would anticipate there would be a full and open discussion with all affected parties, which would occur in advance of such a decision. Perhaps even looking down the road, it may even be the YESAA board itself that would come to the territorial government, saying this might be an opportunity that would exist.
I would like to say, senator, that certainly if that day does come, we would see a full and active participation of all of those people who are engaged in this process prior to that decision being made.
The Chair: I have six questioners and 30 minutes left. That gives each one five minutes. I'm going to ask for the questions to be fairly succinct, as well as the answers, so that every senator who wishes to ask a question gets an opportunity to do so.
Senator Lang, I'll give you one last quick one, and hopefully a fairly quick answer. Then we'll have to rob a little time from someone else. Go ahead, sir.
Senator Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think the premier has outlined the importance of the legislation. I would like to ask a very direct question.
Mr. Premier, could you outline the need of the passage of the bill, in view of the parliamentary timetable?
Mr. Pasloski: We are very aware of the realities of democratically elected governments and that there will be a national election next year. So I am concerned, and I'm certainly urging expediency when it comes to consideration of the amendments to Bill S-6 so that we will be able to push forward.
Also, I would encourage the government to look at the regulatory side of this act, and do so in an expeditious manner.
Senator Black: Mr. Premier, thank you very much for being here, and Ms. Stinson as well. Congratulations to you and your colleagues on the success story that is the Yukon. It is a very real success story, and Canadians outside the Yukon understand that and are proud of that.
Would you share with us, please, your view as to the economic effects to the Yukon that might exist if these amendments are not passed?
Mr. Pasloski: Quite simply put, we would not be able to be competitive because other jurisdictions would have processes and examples. If I want to use, for example, legislated timelines, it would become more difficult to find investment to see projects go forward, because in a territory as large as ours, with as few people as we have, we are always looking for foreign investment, for investment from other parts of Canada. So it's very important that we are able to ensure that we have that consistency, because this is something I hear about when I talk to investors.
I can tell you that a CEO from Yukon has spoken to me and told me that for every three months he is mining he spends one month in assessment. Quite frankly, that's just not acceptable. It's very difficult to convince investors and companies to look at Yukon if, in fact, there is that sort of uncertainty.
We have enough challenges when we live in the North to be able to proceed with large projects. Because we have challenges, the distance that we are away from markets, the cost of energy, there are enough things that we have already that we need to work on.
As a government, we are focusing on the things we can do to ensure that we offer the best opportunity for investment.
Senator Patterson: As another northern senator, I just want to say that we've always looked to Yukon as leading the way in moving decision making closer to home through devolution. I think you were the inspiration for the NWT's historic step taken April 1. It's working in Yukon; why can't we do it in NWT? And I hope Nunavut is going to be next.
I've always been a territorial legislator, and I've always been offended that distant officials in Ottawa were telling us how to manage our land and resources. Would you say that this bill is basically about including the delegation of ministerial power, is about bringing decision making closer to home?
Mr. Pasloski: Thank you, senator. As we have discussed, and certainly Yukon is an example, when you create the opportunity, allow decisions to be made closer to home, the result can be quite profound. When I say that, I say that with respect to not only encouraging economic development but also ensuring responsible development, ensuring that we're also working to do this and in a way that will not have an impact on the environment, because we live in the Yukon, and I think that one of the great marketing opportunities for employers is the quality of life that exists in Yukon. There are great opportunities in an economy that continues to diversify as a result of the population growth that focuses or has primarily been around the resource extraction industry, but you can step outside your door and be in incredible wilderness and enjoy all the attributes and the thrills that go with that.
As a government, we are very focused on ensuring that we have the opportunities that will be created to say that we have a level playing field again, and while doing so we're also very cognizant of ensuring that we protect that heritage we have. There are amendments to this legislation that help in that respect as well in terms of the ability to look at cumulative effects, adding on to the environmental protection that we have, which is one of the amendments that's being proposed in Bill S-6.
Senator Patterson: Where we're at today is the result of a long review. I just wondered if you could describe how long that has gone on. I think it was before your time as premier even that it started.
I want you to clarify this for me, and I think this is not always the way it's done with federal legislation elsewhere; I understood that drafts of the legislation were shared with the parties on a very privileged, confidential basis. Could you outline a bit about that process, please?
Mr. Pasloski: As YESAA was a new piece of federal legislation and proclaimed in 2003, it began the five-year review in 2008. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada — I'm trying to remember if that was the name at the time — wrote a letter to all the affected parties in October of 2012 stating that the five-year review process was concluded. As I mentioned, I believe 73 of 76 recommendations were agreed upon by consensus.
At that time, the federal government informed all the affected parties that on top of the five-year review we wanted to look at other possible amendments that would ensure that Yukon could remain consistent with the changes and amendments to legislation in other jurisdictions.
Through that time, the parties had the opportunity to provide comments up front, and then through the consultation process there was a sharing of ideas and possible amendments. In fact you were correct, senator, that the federal government did share the draft legislation in February of this year, allowing eight weeks for the Yukon First Nations and Yukon government to be able to look at it and provide further comments, which we did. I'm pleased to say that it's through that consultation that we've come up with the document and the amendments that you have tabled before you today.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Mr. Premier. You mentioned thousands of hours of consultation that went into these amendments over a fairly significant period of time. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on the results in this bill, particularly with respect to the accommodations that were made pursuant to issues raised by First Nations and other stakeholders.
Mr. Pasloski: Thank you, senator. It would probably be best to allow the First Nations to comment on the accommodations, the proposals they put forward and where they were. I am aware that a number of suggestions made by the First Nations were in fact adopted into the proposed legislation that you have in front of you.
Certainly, there were things I think we both talked about with regard to reassessments. I think the initial draft called for the YESAA board to decide whether another assessment would be required, but it was through the consultation with First Nations and the Yukon government that that was, in fact, changed to be the decision body to make that decision, the regulator as opposed to the YESAA board.
So that was an example of some legislation. I believe just the formal removal of CEAA from Yukon was another suggestion that was made by the First Nations.
The Umbrella Final Agreement and Chapter 12 resulted in the creation of the YESAA legislation, therefore making CEAA not applicable in the Yukon Territory.
Senator Seidman: Were other stakeholders involved in consultations on these amendments?
Mr. Pasloski: The primary stakeholders, of course, would be the YESAA board, the Council of Yukon First Nations, individual Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government.
Senator Seidman: The Yukon government is satisfied that their issues were considered in these amendments?
Mr. Pasloski: That's correct. Of course, other things suggested as well. We didn't get everything that we talked about, but I feel that there was adequate consultation and consideration of all the things that we proposed.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to see you again. I still have fond memories of our May tour in your wonderful region. Thank you for hosting us. That visit was very educational for me, and I wanted to thank you for it.
I spent much of my life in northern Quebec. We know that the autonomous economic development of remote regions is part of their value and, often, when you are far from political powers, you feel that you are dependent on those powers in terms of development.
I want to congratulate you on all the work you have done to advance the cause of remote regions in terms of the economy and to help them take charge of their own destiny.
My question will overlap with those asked by senators Black and Patterson. How will the proposed amendments help you make progress in terms of autonomy, development, greater control of the power you have over your economic or regional development and, especially, in terms of your power of influence?
Starting tomorrow, in what way will this agreement change the life of a politician like you? You will probably sleep better at night, but how will this change your everyday life?
[English]
Mr. Pasloski: Thank you, senator. I think there are a lot of things that certainly come about as a result of this. I briefly mentioned the timelines. Timelines are one of those things that will provide that certainty. I have to comment right now that the assessments that are being done, or have been done through YESAA, have all met the timelines that we are describing now, but they exist in the YESAA board rules. Legislating those timelines truly provides certainty to investors and companies.
Any time that we can create more certainty, it allows us to have a greater opportunity to see projects go forward. The result of that would perhaps be to see another mine open. The mining industry, through many discussions we've had, will say that for every job that occurs directly in a mine, six to eight additional jobs are created in the territory.
What this means for us is that we can continue to see our population grow. We can continue to focus on areas such as Yukon Research Centre, providing a fibre optic cable so we can enhance our IT sector. Allow us, first, to create more revenue, which allows governments to provide the services and the programs on behalf of the citizens but allows us to continue to diversify our economy. As we do so, it helps to take some of the dips that you see in the cyclical life of a mining economy.
I'm excited right away as we can now go out and talk to people and say that's another check mark in the box for Yukon.
Could I just have an additional minute to also remind everyone that this legislation is not just about resources? As we move forward as a government and work with municipalities creating waste water systems, solid waste systems or building new bridges, all of these things create economy, drive jobs and increase competitiveness on bidding on jobs. All of these things are very important to ensuring that Yukoners continue to have the incredible lifestyle that they do living in one of the most spectacular parts of the world.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: One of the important factors in remote regions is the mobilization of communities and elected members. Do you feel that this bill has a mobilizing effect on the people around you, on local or regional politicians?
[English]
Mr. Pasloski: I can say confidently that citizens of Yukon are quite engaged as it is right now. In a small jurisdiction, politics continues to be up close and personal. I think that our senator, who I believe sat in our Legislative Assembly for 18 years, can attest to that as well.
We have very strong engagement. But I think this, combined with the opportunity to look at the regulatory process that goes along with this legislation, can have an incredible effect on enhancing a great story that has already been told in the last 10 years.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, chair. I'm realizing now that because I'm not the vice chair and I don't get the first question, my colleagues ask them all before you get to it. But I'm not daunted.
I want to thank you, premier, for being here and Ms. Stinson as well. I know it's a long way and you have busy schedules, but it's very helpful to us.
Premier, you mentioned that the vast majority of the recommendations that came out of the review process have been accommodated in this legislation. I understand there are some that haven't. Could you give us some idea of how significant they are, how much you want them and what might be holding them up, whether they are controversial?
Mr. Pasloski: Thank you, senator. I think the response we received from Canada on some of the issues we brought up was that they described them as administrative or perhaps policy-based questions.
What I would say is that we will continue to work with YESAA, with the board, in communication. I'd also continue to encourage proponents to do the same thing, but there are ways to deal with things outside of a legislatively mandated review. That would be, for example, board rules or policy to the board.
Also, through the five-year review, one of the recommendations was the creation of a YESAA forum. The YESAA forum has already met a number of times — I believe five times — and this is all the stakeholders coming together to look at what exists and how we can continue to make things better.
Ultimately I believe, as Minister Valcourt mentioned last week, it's important for responsible government to make legislative changes when necessary, so if there is, in fact, a time where we need to look at this legislation again from a legislative perspective, then he assured us that that would be the case.
Senator Mitchell: This next question is quite specific, but you alluded to the improvement in the environmental review process with respect to cumulative effects, saying that to this point, cumulative effects have been any project that's under way or that exists already. In the future, as a result of this legislation, cumulative effects will have to consider projects that are likely to be carried out.
It's very specific, but what sort of processes have been undertaken to define ``likely to be carried out?'' Has that occurred, or will it as this becomes practice?
Mr. Pasloski: From a Yukon perspective, we have been doing some studies through the Department of Environment and work on cumulative effects studies for the last few years as well. I don't have the answer for how that will actually be addressed through YESAA, but I do know that we already have a considerable amount of experience working in a couple different areas of Yukon with First Nations to study cumulative effects.
As I mentioned and as you've alluded to, this is an enhancement, and I think it is very important. We have just under 500,000 square kilometres in the Yukon and just under 38,000 people, and I think there's an opportunity for us to continue to look for opportunities to drive our private sector economy but ensure that while doing so, we do it in a respectful and responsible manner with the environment.
Senator Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Premier.
As you've pointed out, it's important to your government to be competitive and attract private sector investment, and you've been very successful at that. I think you made it pretty clear that you feel that this bill, if enacted, would further the competitiveness of Yukon.
When you say that, what are the key aspects of the bill that you feel would increase the competitiveness for private- sector investment? You have mentioned time limits, and those certainly are important to the private sector, but are there any other key aspects of the bill that you feel enhance the competitiveness of Yukon?
Mr. Pasloski: The clarification clause around renewals will also make a significant advancement for us. As I mentioned in my opening statement, a renewal or an amendment in itself should not trigger a review, which has been the case until now. Minister Valcourt mentioned last week that he thought that unless there were significant changes, we shouldn't have to go through that process again.
I would like to stress that this is consistent with other jurisdictions as well. When you continue to do this — and I alluded to one CEO who's told me that, for three months of mining, he does one month of assessment — it does create uncertainty, which then creates uncertainty for employees and their families. It certainly creates uncertainty for those projects; it creates uncertainty for their suppliers and, indirectly, all those other jobs that I spoke of, whether it's somebody at the tire shop, the grocery store, or somebody selling cars or selling TVs. It also creates uncertainty around investment.
Along with a lot of uncertainty, the other aspect of this is the fact that when you have to trigger this process and do it again, even if there is no real environmental reason for it — if it's purely an administrative reason for doing it — I would suggest that we're spending a lot of the taxpayers' money and a lot of good people's time to go through these processes when they're not necessarily required. And I'd like to reassert that that is consistent with other jurisdictions.
With your indulgence, chair, I do want to talk about another economic opportunity that exists today, and that is the certainty that we have with 11 First Nations that have signed final self-government agreements. There has recently been a Supreme Court case around a First Nation in British Columbia that has, in a lot of respects, created more uncertainty as to where the future is going. There were people who, 20 years ago, were wondering what these final agreements would be and the vision that really started in Yukon. Today, that now becomes obvious with the fact that there has been an agreement on settlement land. That uncertainty that has now come up as a result of that Supreme Court decision is not the case for those 11 First Nations and for Yukon.
When I'm now talking to people, that's another reason or check box for Yukon to say that we have that certainty as a result of the foresight that came about really beginning 40 years ago with the document that came from Yukon to the prime minister. It was Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow, and it started the process that culminated in 1993 with the signing of the Umbrella Final Agreement and the first four final self-government agreements in Yukon.
The Chair: Everybody has cooperated well. We'll go to second round.
Senator Massicotte: You made a comment that 76 recommendations came from the sunset review of the previous act, or ``73'' was the total consensus. Do these 17 pages reflect all of your recommendations? Are you pleased with them?
Mr. Pasloski: We are pleased with it. As I mentioned, there were some things that we had put forward to Canada that were not accepted, or you don't see them in front of you. However, I do believe there is a process we can follow to continue to work on those issues, and we're confident that we'll continue to build that relationship with the board and use those avenues that are available to us.
Senator Massicotte: Of the 76 recommendations, do any deal with the deed for a minister having the authority to give policy direction?
Mr. Pasloski: No, that amendment came subsequent to the five-year review, in the last two years where Canada came forward with the goal of ensuring consistency with our legislation with other jurisdictions in the country.
Senator Lang: As the senator for the region, I wanted to say that this legislation provides some wonderful opportunities and challenges for the people of the Yukon, and all segments of our population should benefit, in view of the past history that we already have had. But the importance of those amendments cannot be understated, and the passage of this bill is very important over the course of the next number of months so that we can get on with the regulations and with the governing that's required.
I received a letter earlier today from one of the chiefs in Yukon, and I would like the premier to maybe make a comment in respect to a statement that was made in this letter. I believe there's been a lot of misunderstanding, unfortunately, regarding this legislation and how it affects some First Nations. Perhaps you could clarify.
The letter says that Bill S-6 fundamentally changes the general intent and practical effect of YESAA application in the Yukon, deviating significantly from Yukon First Nation final agreements.
I'm wondering, Mr. Premier, if you could comment on that statement.
Mr. Pasloski: I would refer back to section 4 of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, which states that if there is ``. . . an inconsistency or conflict between a final agreement and this Act, the agreement prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.''
That clearly ensures that the vision put forward in the Umbrella Final Agreement continues to exist. As I mentioned, there is good representation of First Nations on the environmental assessment board, with three members out of the total of seven.
This is truly a piece of legislation, as I have alluded to with a couple examples of timelines and renewals, that is very important to all Yukoners. With the unique governance we have in the territory, we're all partners together and, with such a small economy, we are fully engaged. We support the First Nations in helping them build capacity to help them with their governance in many different fashions, as well, because we all believe that, in the end, working together and all pulling in the same direction is how we have been successful to date and how we'll continue to be successful.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses. There were very thoughtful questions, and thank you for your answers, premier. Again, on behalf of the senators present, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to be here.
Welcome to the second portion of this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We are continuing our examination of Bill S-6, the proposed Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome our second panel of witnesses, from the Government of Nunavut, the Honourable Johnny Mike, Minister of Environment; and William MacKay, Director, Intergovernmental Relations.
Minister and Mr. MacKay, thank you for being here. We appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedules to come here and present to us.
I understand, minister, you have a presentation to make, and then we'll go to questions. The floor is yours, sir.
Hon. Johnny Mike, M.L.A., Minister of Environment, Government of Nunavut: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. My name is Johnny Mike and I'm the Minister of Environment for the Government of Nunavut.
On behalf of Premier Taptuna, I would like to thank the committee for the invitation extended to the premier to appear before you. Premier Taptuna sends his regrets and I am appearing on his behalf.
I'm here to speak in support of Part 2 of Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. This bill is an important step in creating an effective and modern regulatory regime for Nunavut. The Nunavut Water Board plays an essential role in land and resource management in Nunavut. It is composed of members appointed or nominated by Inuit as well as the territorial and federal governments, Inuit meaning NTI, and under their umbrella organization. It has operated effectively in Nunavut since 1996.
This bill will give the board and regulators important new powers that will ensure that water use in Nunavut is sustainable and environmentally safe.
Mr. Chair, the Government of Nunavut believes that this bill will make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut. It will give the water board increased flexibility and give regulators better enforcement powers. It will ensure a regulatory process with predictable timelines and clear integration with the work of the other regulators and boards in Nunavut.
The Government of Nunavut supports the proposed amendments and was consulted when they were developed. In particular, the increase in existing fines associated with water licences will bring the fine levels in line with those under the Territorial Lands Act and other pieces of federal environmental legislation and will serve as an effective deterrent to unlicensed water use.
Likewise, the addition of an administrative monetary penalties regime will give enforcement officers more tools to ensure that the legislation is complied with and will allow for more effective and efficient enforcement of water licence conditions. Allowing for ``life-of-project'' water licences will give the water board the flexibility to issue licences to developers that are better tailored to the particular water use and will give developers clearer certainty of their water rights.
The requirement in the bill that the water board take into consideration agreements between Canada, regional Inuit associations and proponents regarding the posting of security will address the issue of ``over-bonding,'' which is a barrier to the investment in Nunavut.
Finally, the specific timelines that are established in the bill for regulator and ministerial decisions are particularly welcomed by the Government of Nunavut. 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 environmental protection and 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. The proposed amendments to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act will contribute to a transparent and effective regulatory system in Nunavut. An effective regulatory system is a key component of devolution and will assist the transition of land and water management from Canada to Nunavut.
Mr. Chair, those are all I have in terms of opening remarks. I thank the committee members for their time. I'm prepared to answer any questions the committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. I appreciate that.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you very much, Mr. Mike and Mr. MacKay, for being with us. We much appreciate your participation and your contribution to this debate.
I'm just wondering, on the penalty stuff, there was a significant increase, basically nearly a 250 per cent increase in penalties for improper water use. We haven't seen those amendments in the balance of the act. Was there something that happened in Nunavut where this matter has become very sensitive? Maybe somebody abused an existing licence and therefore you sought to increase the maximum penalties?
Mr. Mike: Mr. Chair, generally we support changes to the licensing regime that will exclude harmless use of water from regulation, but your question, if I correctly understand it, I think what the Government of Nunavut is saying is that we just want to see something that is already practised in the other jurisdictions in some way.
Senator Massicotte: The other question I had, as opposed to renewing it on a regular basis, is that you're now able to give licences up to 25 years for type A or type B use. That's a long time. The environment can change very quickly. You've seen climate change in the North in particular. Do you have the right, after 10 or 15 years, to say, ``Irrespective of the agreement, we need to change your agreement,'' as applicable to a certain user?
Mr. Mike: Are you talking about the life of a project?
Senator Massicotte: Yes.
Mr. Mike: The water board and the other management regimes are going to govern that area to see how the life of a project will work in the way that it can have an effect on the developer or the investor, should there be any problems with the water licence.
Senator Patterson: I'd like to welcome Minister Mike to our committee. I'm glad we're focusing on the Nunavut piece of this bill.
I think that the most important provision in this bill respecting Nunavut is section 76 on the so-called over-bonding — I've always called it double-bonding — problem. Could the minister explain how double-bonding comes about as between Crown land and Inuit land and how has that been a problem, like a barrier to development so far, or what you call a barrier to investment in Nunavut?
Mr. Mike: Thank you, senator. Yes, we probably both know what the real issue is, which is that there's a Nunavut land claims agreement in place that we have an obligation to look after. That agreement is one of the foremost complicated evolutionary land claims agreements, as you know. Within our federal jurisdiction in Nunavut land, 18 per cent of the land belongs to the Inuit of Nunavut. Therefore, the double-bonding issue has been kind of an obstacle for economic development and investment simply because of the land claim definition of how it should be handled.
Today, I'm pleased to see the bill is going the direction of resolving the double-bonding, but we feel it needs greater clarity on how such agreements will work and what they will contain.
Senator Patterson: If I may, Mr. Chair, and the minister can help me with this, as I understand it, to try and put it simply, there's Inuit land in Nunavut, up to 18 per cent of the land in Nunavut, which makes the Inuit the biggest private land holders in the world, and then there's Crown land. The Inuit have been very smart about selecting land around developments. Almost every proposed mining project in Nunavut is either on or needs access through Inuit land.
So do I understand right that until this amendment was proposed, Inuit, who are the landowners and managers, could demand security for water use on Inuit land, and then the Crown could demand security for the Crown land, so mining companies were having to come up with two bonds and twice the challenge with a project? So this section addresses that by allowing the minister to arrange and the board to consider an arrangement for one bond instead of two. Am I understanding the problem correctly?
Mr. Mike: Yes, you are. It's been problematic for any party involved in terms of dealing with double-bonding because of the landownership. This bill is going to help determine how this process and the agreement should work down further in a way that with this land claims agreement we're talking about, which involves Inuit-owned lands and Crown lands in those areas, there has to be a mechanism now in order to avoid double-bonding. I believe this bill will take care of that.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks very much to both of you for being here. It's a long way and we appreciate the time and effort that you took to be here with us.
My first question concerns capacity. Your government does undertake a lot of the work now, but this is more work still. You're a small population. How are you dealing with the question of expertise and personnel to undertake the kind of review processes that are implicit in these changes?
Mr. Mike: Thank you, senator. The water regulation and licensing will remain the responsibility of the federal government under this bill until such time as Canada and Nunavut reach agreement on devolution.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you. There's the question of administrative monetary penalties. A regime is going to be implemented. Have you given some thought to the magnitude of the penalties?
Mr. Mike: Nunavut faces a variety of environmental challenges. The territory is vast with, as you said, relatively few inhabitants. The ecosystem is fragile and susceptible to man-made disturbance. The size and remoteness of the territory provides enforcement challenges. That's one of the real reasons. For this reason, it is crucial to have a clear and effective regulatory regime. The regime must be clear not only for proponents and regulators but also for the people of Nunavut, the public, the landowners and the stakeholders.
The amendments to Bill S-6 will contribute positively to the current system. For example, the introduction of administrative monetary penalties and increased fines for offences under the act will assist enforcement officers. The specific timelines that are established will bring certainty to all parties. The amendments to the bill will assist regulators and Nunavummiut in dealing with the environmental challenges facing Nunavut.
Senator Black: Minister, thank you very much for being here.
For my benefit, but I think also for the benefit of the folks watching this, wherever and whenever they're watching it, can you please help me understand when water licenses would be required and why they would be required?
Mr. Mike: As I said, Nunavut territory is young and it's very challenging. In order to talk about the economy, Nunavut needs to be developed. The territory is seeking a way to help out so that developers and stakeholders can enjoy a lot of the management regimes within the water licensing, just like in the other jurisdictions.
Senator Black: May I ask a follow-up question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Black: That's very helpful. Is there lack of a water resource in Nunavut that causes the licensing to be necessary?
Senator Patterson: There's a lot of water in Nunavut.
Senator Black: That's what I'm thinking. That's why I'm wondering why we're licensing it.
Mr. Mike: Thank you, senator. There is a lot of water and we do care about the water.
Senator Black: Of course.
Mr. Mike: We need to have something in place to protect the environment.
Senator Black: Very well.
Mr. Mike: This bill will help out. The people of the territory care about it so much that we need to have this kind of bill in place in order to have a safe environment for water and for development.
Senator Black: That's very helpful. Thank you, minister.
Senator Lang: Welcome to our guests. To follow up on Senator Black's observations about your part of the world, it's amazing what an expanse of geography Nunavut encompasses. I had the opportunity of travelling there a number of years ago. It's a very beautiful part of the world. I went to Pangnirtung and to Coral Harbour — places not many have heard of. It was an enjoyable trip.
There's a section in the bill that refers to cost recovery. It's a new section. For the record, could you tell us what it does and what your intentions are looking into the future?
Mr. Mike: Yes, senator. The cost recovery is a model adopted by many regulators in Canada, but we don't believe it is appropriate for Nunavut. The cost of resource development in Nunavut is already significantly higher than in Southern Canada. Cost recovery would be a disincentive to investment. If the minister is given the power to seek recovery of the government's costs, the discretion should be used sparingly, and project proponents should be notified before the regulatory review begins whether the government will be seeking recovery of the government's cost.
Senator Lang: To clarify for the record, from the Government of Nunavut's point of view, for the purposes of the regulatory process, it would not be your position that you would be doing cost recovery from the proponents in respect of the process itself. Is that correct?
Senator Patterson: Well, we haven't got devolution there yet. You have to talk to the federal minister.
Mr. Mike: Thank you for the comment, but I'll say that we are working towards having devolution. We want to be ahead of the game here. Certainly this bill will help out in furthering the Government of Nunavut toward serious devolution agreements with Canada.
The Chair: I'll now go to second round.
Senator Mitchell: Speaking of the stages of devolution, what do you anticipate will be the next stage? What do you hope the next stage might be? Would it be based on review of land projects, the same kind of evolution that has occurred elsewhere?
Mr. Mike: Like I said, Nunavut is newborn; it's new. This bill will certainly cover and outline some of the vision of the Government of Nunavut regarding devolution. I think Bill S-6 is one of the most important pieces of legislation that can have an effect on further talk about devolution coming from Canada to Nunavut.
Senator Wallace: Minister, in your comments you said you were supportive of the consultation process that took place between the Government of Nunavut and the federal government. Could you describe somewhat how that consultative process unfolded and the fact that your government was able to make comments where it thought it would be important to the people of Nunavut?
Mr. Mike: Yes. When GN received the proposal, it was shared with GN officials several months before a draft bill was prepared. The draft bill was sent to Premier Taptuna for official comment and, given the limited scope of the facts and the fact that they are consistent with the other federal environmental legislation, GN did not have significant concerns with the proposed amendments. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Minister, you talked about Nunavut being a newborn, and yours is a new government elected last October. I understand that the cabinet met early on to set priorities for the new government. You talked a bit about barriers to development in the cost-recovery mechanism, and regulations that could be developed in this act.
Could you share with this committee your government's vision, its priorities and particularly where you see economic development as a priority over the coming four years of your term?
Mr. Mike: We are talking about Nunavut being a young territory, and it is, with significant mineral potential, and the natural resources sector will only continue to grow as infrastructure develops and training and education opportunities produce a strong workforce.
As it stands, there is significant lack of infrastructure in Nunavut; in some cases, the lack of infrastructure presents an insurmountable obstacle for projects. However, as more companies begin to operate in the territory, infrastructure will grow and further opportunities will be presented.
Considering the continued investment in the natural resource sector, along with the progress in other economic areas, we see a bright economic future for Nunavut.
The Chair: That completes the questions we have. Minister, thank you very much for being here, for presenting your case and for answering questions. We appreciate it very much.
(The committee adjourned.)