THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 22, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to study emerging issues related to the committee’s mandate.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Paul J. Massicotte. I am a senator from Quebec and I’m the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I would like to ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Hartling: Senator Hartling from New Brunswick, replacing Senator David Arnot.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Chair: The committee has again invited the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development along with members of his team and officials from departments to appear as part of its study on emerging issues related to the committee’s mandate for a briefing session on the commissioner’s performance audit report on contaminated sites in the North.
Please note that the commissioner is not here. Owing to technical problems with VIA Rail, he won’t be here. However, we apparently have the best in class and I’m sure all will go well.
We welcome, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, replacing Mr. DeMarco, Kimberley Leach, Principal, and Marie-Pierre Grondin, Director. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we welcome Rob Wright, Associate Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, and Georgina Lloyd, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs.
We also welcome, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Nicole Cote, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, and Seth Cain, Director, Contaminated Sites Division.
From Transport Canada, we have Ross Ezzeddin, Director General, Air and Marine Programs, and Adele Cooper, Director, Environmental Management.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us.
You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.
The floor is yours, Mr. Dompierre.
Martin Dompierre, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: I’m Martin Dompierre, Assistant Auditor General filling in for Mr. DeMarco, who, as you’ve said, has been on a train for several hours and is unable to join us this evening. Since Mr. DeMarco gave his statement and presented the topic during the last meeting, we do not have opening remarks. As you’ve mentioned, Ms. Kimberley Leach is with us to speak about the report on contaminated sites in the North. She is accompanied by Marie-Pierre Grondin, Director.
I’ll give the floor to the next person who wishes to make opening remarks. We will be ready to answer your questions afterwards.
[English]
Nicole Cote, Director General, Environmental Protection Operations, Environment and Climate Change Canada: My name is Nicole Cote as mentioned. I am the Director General of the Environmental Protection Operations directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada. I am at the committee today to respond to questions related to the report that has been already mentioned.
We want to thank the commissioner and all of his team for their work and appreciate the observations of the work that the Government of Canada is doing to protect the environment and human health from the effects of historical contaminated sites. This work is an important component of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
Contamination at most federal sites is the result of historic activities going back decades to a time when pollution prevention and the principle of polluter pays may not have applied, and understanding of the impacts of various chemicals was limited.
The Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, affectionately known as FCSAP, funds the management of the majority of federal contaminated sites in Canada. Throughout this program, Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, provides the policy and administrative leadership through a range of federal custodians, including Transport Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada that are here with us tonight. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is primarily responsible for administering and maintaining the federal contaminated sites inventory, which is a repository of all of our known contaminated sites. They provide support and advice to ECCC as part of the secretariat.
The government is responsible for other contaminated sites, such as those managed under the Northern Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, which was considered as part of the audit as well as other sites from other custodians and those under the responsibility of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Rob Wright will be speaking more to the Northern Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program.
The Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan has provided government with a robust process for identifying, assessing and remediating contaminated sites. It’s a process based on tools and guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Within the funding provided, FCSAP has prioritized the clean-up of sites that pose the highest risk to human health and the environment, which is determined by using the national tools that we have available.
The government has made significant progress on its contaminated sites. The Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan was established in 2005, and, to date, more than 24,000 federal sites have been identified. Of these, more than three quarters has been closed, meaning risks to the environment or human health have been eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels.
There has been significant work to address contaminated sites on reserve lands and in the North, which has been a significant source of employment and business opportunities for Indigenous peoples.
With respect to liability, when FCSAP first started, we didn’t have the greatest detail about the extent or the number and complexities of the federal sites that were known at the time. So in 2005, after the first year FCSAP, the government had initially estimated 10,000 of these suspected sites. We now know more about federal contaminated sites than ever before, and this has led to a greater understanding of what would be considered contamination and has led to the increase in the 24,000 number that I gave you earlier.
As more sites have been identified, assessed and remediation action plans develop, the recorded liability has increased to reflect more accurately the cost to Canadians. Without significant actions taken by the government through the FCSAP program and the Northern Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program, that liability would be roughly $4.6 billion higher than it is today.
Environmental liability is driven by a range of factors, and many of those factors are very challenging to address. Costs to remediate sites have increased due to inflation, given the length of time this program has existed. Remaining sites are the ones that are most complex, and that is partially why they have taken so long, or they are located in remote parts of Canada in northern areas, which adds complexities in terms of accessing those sites.
In addition, contaminants spread further over time. New contaminants are emerging that we didn’t know about at the time of the initial investment in the program.
The government’s view is that FCSAP is fulfilling its core objectives of reducing risks to both human health and the environment and reducing federal liabilities associated with the sites that have been funded to address. The government takes the results of this audit as an opportunity for continued improvement. We will encourage practices to improve costs and liability estimates, manage sites in a manner that is resilient to climate change, and engage Indigenous peoples and the public and ensure final closure documentation is completed in a timely manner. We have also improved performance measurement, transparency and reporting within available funding in line with the program’s ongoing commitment to achieve its objectives and support other government priorities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide those opening comments. I will now turn to Mr. Wright, if that is appropriate.
Rob Wright, Associate Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I am joined virtually by Ms. Georgina Lloyd, Assistant Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs, who is attending an oversight meeting for the Faro Mine in the Yukon.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
[Translation]
My department welcomes the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development’s audit of the Northern Contaminated Sites program. It provides us with invaluable information and recommendations to better fulfill our important mandate of managing contaminated sites in Northern Canada.
This program, administered by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, is currently responsible for managing more than 160 active contaminated sites. The program aims to reduce or eliminate, where possible, the risks for human and environmental health, and to decrease the federal environmental liability associated with contaminated sites in the North, while promoting socio-economic opportunities for Indigenous peoples and residents of the North.
This last part is important. The program plays an essential role in our department’s commitment to self-determination and economic reconciliation, while ensuring that Indigenous partners contribute to project governance. The program also promotes benefits such as better access to employment, training and economic opportunities arising from the various projects.
[English]
Many of the 160-plus sites within the Northern Contaminated Sites Program were abandoned years ago. These “legacy sites” are not subject to current legislation that requires site owners to have plans in place to finance the decommissioning of these facilities. So when it comes to reducing risks to human and environmental health, and to covering the costs of the clean-up of these projects, it’s the Government of Canada that has inherited this important responsibility.
It is important to point out that the Northern Contaminated Sites Program is making progress. Approximately 85% of the sites in the program have now been closed, meaning that environmental liabilities have been significantly reduced, and more than an additional 50 sites have been remediated and are pending closure or are now under long-term monitoring.
The audit before you points out that financial liabilities for completing this important work have increased substantially. At the same time, it is important to note that the number of sites has increased over time and the regulatory environment has continued to evolve. Perhaps equally important, the program has matured to a point where remediation strategies and, therefore, clear project scopes for the largest projects are now being developed. It is not so much that the costs have increased. It is more that the full costs are now being calculated.
In other words, these liabilities are based on a more solid foundation of the scope and scale of the work required to remediate these large and complex sites, and are informed by remediation plans being reviewed and adjusted through co-management regimes and regulatory reviews.
The Faro Mine Remediation Project and the Giant Mine Remediation Project, two of the most complex contaminated site projects from both technical and regulatory perspectives, are good examples of the progress being made.
[Translation]
The remediation plan for the Faro Mine project is currently under regulatory review, and the work is progressing in parallel to construction of an urgently needed permanent water treatment plant. New revegetation initiatives on the site are also providing Indigenous people with employment opportunities, while enabling community members to begin reconnecting with the land.
At the same time, the Giant Mine project entered the implementation phase in fall 2022, and groundbreaking for the new permanent water treatment plant took place in summer 2023.
[English]
As we move forward, we are confident that implementing the commissioner’s recommendations will enable us to build upon this progress and achieve more in the years ahead. We are committed to bolstering our existing practices and developing new ways to more effectively reduce risks to the environment and human health, better integrate long-term sustainability issues, improve communications with the public and enhance opportunities for Indigenous people to benefit from the management of contaminated sites in the North.
Thank you, meegwetch.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll go immediately to the question period.
Senator Galvez: Thank you all for being with us this evening to answer our questions.
[English]
First, I would like to congratulate you in the sense that you put this report together — it is not a nice picture, but it is a real picture of what is going on in the North. You have 24,000 sites, and you say that the liability is growing with time as you do the assessments. My first question is this: How did it go from 2.9 billion in 2004 to 10.1 billion in 2022-23? What are the factors that have increased this? That is my first question.
Ms. Cote: Would you like the principals first?
Senator Galvez: Who can answer the question?
Kimberley Leach, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: I’ll start by talking about the report. Thank you for the question.
The program began in 2005, and the liability at that point was $2.9 billion for contaminated sites. It increased in 2023 to $10.1 billion. The reasons for that — and I’m sure Ms. Cote can give you some of the specific details — but we asked the same question during our audit, and we found that one of the main reasons was what they call cost adjustments. That can be a number of things, including revisions to the initial estimates, as we have heard. Certainly, we have learned a lot more over time, and that has increased the cost of the liability.
There are delays in site remediation. These sites are in the North. They can be difficult to access, and there are difficult seasons to do the work in. There is also a lack of initial assessment data, which would help in terms of more reliable estimates. There are things like inflation and poor results from past phases. Coronavirus and associated supply chain effects were also cited as reasons. That’s in paragraph 18 of our report.
Senator Galvez: I have two more questions. This cause of liability — who will afford this liability? Who is responsible for this liability? Is it the government? Did you find any of the past owners of these sites? Are they somehow liable?
Ms. Leach: Some of the departmental representatives could probably speak to that, but the liability is reported in the Public Accounts of Canada — that number 10.1 —
Senator Galvez: So it is for us to front all of that?
Ms. Leach: Yes.
Senator Galvez: Last, I see the number of sites, but it doesn’t say whether it’s single metal mine, poly-metal mine or oil and gas. Do you have statistics on the types of sites?
Ms. Leach: Yes, we didn’t publish the details of that in the report, but I’m sure Mr. Wright can give you some of the details. The federal contaminated sites inventory provides a detailed assessment of the different types of sites and the contaminants that are in each of the sites.
Senator Galvez: I have one last question. When you calculate the remediation, the option of recovering some of these metals in the case of the poly-metallic mine has been studied. For one tonne of earth that you dig, you just collect a few grams of a given metal, but many metals remain in the residue.
Have you seen the alternative or the possibility of recuperating those metals?
Mr. Wright: Perhaps I can package a couple of responses to the questions you had.
What I can add to the first is that there is a 10-step process for the remediation of contaminated sites. It is at the completion of step 7, where you create remediation plan, when you establish a baseline cost estimate. Many of these sites have been going through the initial steps. So if you look at the eight largest sites in the North, which are part of the Northern Abandoned Mines Reclamation Program, it can help to provide some sense of why costs have increased. Of those eight projects, of which Giant Mine and Faro Mine are included, seven are now in step 7, where those remediation plans are now being established. You can put a cost estimate beside them.
Giant Mine, which is one of the largest, is now in step 8. It has moved into implementation.
This is the stage where baseline cost estimates get established, but those earlier stages, you don’t have a clear scope, so it is impossible to establish the baseline cost estimate.
Just to give you a bit of a sense of the scale and complexity of the projects just on Faro and Giant. Faro is a former lead/zinc mine. It was 25 square kilometres in size. You’re talking about 70 million tonnes of tailings and 320 million tonnes of waste rock. So you have about 26,000 football fields a metre of water deep. When you look at Giant Mine, which covers over 2,000 acres, you’re talking about 237,000 tonnes of arsenic trioxide dust.
So these are very large, complex projects.
Regarding the Faro Mine site, there is another portion of that site called Vangorda. There are actually talks at this point to perhaps reactivate that into active mine operation — exactly to your point — and we’re working with local Indigenous communities to be partial owners of that, potentially, and to get revenue from those operations.
There are a number of other examples where we have sold those mine sites to put them into active operation and to clean them up at the same time.
So we are doing exactly as you suggested.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, panellists. Again, mine is a question of remediated sites.
What happens in the event that a contaminated site has an effect on drinking water near a reserve, town or where there is a use of the water that could be deleterious to people if it’s contaminated? Are there programs in place? Is it financial? Is it relocation? I don’t know if remediation is possible if it’s in groundwater.
Mr. Wright: I’m happy to start with this.
That question is the exact reason why these programs exist and why there is such care with monitoring when they are in care and maintenance, which is the stage before active remediation, where there are sometimes urgent works to address risks when they are identified.
Again, with the Faro Mine site, which is in care and maintenance stage at this point — it has not entered active remediation — we have accelerated the planning to put in place the permanent water treatment plant just to mitigate that exact type of risk you are speaking of.
There is a fairly very strong regulatory co-management framework in place within the territories. There is also active management with Indigenous communities. In fact, on project oversight committees for Faro Mine and Giant Mine, for example, the Indigenous communities sit on those project oversight boards.
So there are measures to make sure there is open and transparent information and active risk management measures to avoid just so those types of instances.
At the same time, to come back to your question, two summers ago now, when the fires in the Northwest Territories were such a risk, and Yellowknife had to be evacuated, there were plans in place to be able to deal with those types of instances with the Giant Mine to ensure there would be no risk to drinking water or inhabitants.
Senator D. M. Wells: Okay.
I will go to mine sites for a moment. The regulator for mine sites — is that a provincial body or is that Natural Resources Canada, a federal body?
Ms. Leach: That would be both. It would depend, because some of the sites in the North are managed by the federal government, and some of them are managed by the province or the territory.
Senator D. M. Wells: So I think the best practice — I don’t know if this comes out of the audits you do, but I think as a recommendation — but a best practice would be to have, as a surety or a bond and a condition of licence, an amount for a severe remediation ought to be held. I know that is what is done with the offshore petroleum boards, which you might know. That works well because the money is there. If a company goes bankrupt, the money doesn’t disappear, which I think is a big problem.
Who would be the regulatory authority — so we understand that it might be the province, territory or the federal government via Natural Resources Canada for mines — for airports, industrial facilities, landfills and military bases? Who would be the regulatory authority for those types of sites that might be contaminated as part of their normal operations?
Ms. Leach: If they are federal airports, for example, Transport Canada would be responsible.
Senator D. M. Wells: That would be all airports, not just Transport Canada’s airports.
Ms. Leach: Transport Canada is here; they could probably speak to that. There are some provincially regulated airports as well.
Ross Ezzedin, Director General, Air and Marine Programs, Transport Canada: Are you asking about the regulatory authority with respect to the environment? Okay, that would usually be the province. It would be up to the owner.
Senator D. M. Wells: What if it’s a federal site, like a Department on National Defence, or DND, site? It’s not a landfill; it’s a DND site, which would be a federal site. Would it still come under provincial regulation — the environmental aspect?
Ms. Leach: Within the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, there are 17 different federal departments that are custodians, and those are departments like DND, Transport, CIRNAC and ECCC. There are 19 departments in total, but 17 are custodians that actually own and are responsible to remediate those sites.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m from Newfoundland and Labrador. I was told some years ago by someone in DND that 5 Wing Goose Bay, which is a former National Defence site; it’s inactive. The reason they didn’t greenfield it and close it was because it would be too expensive to remediate. There are, obviously, a lot of fuels, chemicals and other substances that are dangerous or deleterious. If they closed it — that there would have to be that remediation. It was cheaper for them to just keep it not closed but not active. Are you familiar with this; have you run into this type of thing? I say 5 Wing Goose Bay because I’m from the province, but are there other sites like this?
Ms. Leach: Yes, there are different ways to remediate sites. I’m speaking more as my time as a city planner actually, way back when. Yes, so there would be sites that would be actively remediated meaning that contaminated soil would be removed and placed in a landfill or placed elsewhere. Then there would be passive remediation which could be something like aerating the soil and letting it sit for any number of years. There are a range of different kinds of remediation options available. And that has happened even in our own city with LeBreton Flats. There has been remediation there that has been both active and passive over many years.
Senator D. M. Wells: One more question?
The Chair: I’ll come back to you in a second. Allow me to ask a question at this point. It really bothers me, I must admit, basically where the Government of Canada, us, Canadians, are basically stuck with a huge, significant liability and the explanation we get is that, “Well, we didn’t have adequate, full information.”
Secondly, we didn’t have any sense of the payer by the user effectively. And yet, I have been here for a little bit, I think for 20 years I have asked this question. They said, “No, no, for the mines we now ask for deposits or some kind of bond.” We don’t get exposed, and yet the amount keeps growing and growing and growing. I just can’t help but feel that the mining industry is a tough industry. If you look at the market, there are a lot of failures in the market.
I’m surprised with all that information that we are not quicker to respond to say, “How do we protect ourselves?” We are prepared to have the mines open, but someone has to pay for it to ensure that is not the taxpayers. How do you make me feel better from this disaster? Go ahead.
Mr. Wright: Thank you for the question. I’m happy to start. Within the northern context, it is important to understand that the federal government played a different role than it did with the provinces as a federal land manager. As we have gone through devolution now of powers to the territories — and that is an ongoing act — the federal government has some of these legacy sites. Many of the sites that we’re talking were in operation for decades and decades in the past into the 1950s, and sometimes earlier.
Now, there are regimes in place now in the territories where if a mining operation is to start operations, a financial surety has to be put in place. That did not exist in some of the mines that we are talking about at this point. Many of those mining operations starting up now would not automatically fall to the federal government; the territorial governments in many cases would be the backstop.
We’re talking about a historical period in which there has been a significant change in the northern context.
The Chair: You mentioned today, therefore, is it possible that some form of government would do a deal but not provide for cover completely for all the potential risks? Well, I’m sure there are very good stories, good explanations, and they are such good people, let’s trust them, but to our detriment.
Mr. Wright: Again, others may want to jump in, but at this point, a mining company would be asked to develop a remediation plan and a closure plan. A cost estimate for that plan would be established and they would have to provide financial security for that. Whether, in all instances, that would cover all of the liabilities, that’s a question that time will tell.
Mr. Dompierre: In exhibit 1.7 and 1.8, we talk about a report that we published in 2002 where we made observation around specifically financial security. As you can see in the graph, there are very limited dollars in the bank in order to be able to remediate and compensate in those situations. Two examples are the Giant Mine as has been described so far and the Faro Mine as well. If we go back to the mines, and if there is no financial security in place in order to support, therefore, it is hard to go back and pay back in terms of how do we remediate and ensure that they are covering from those situations?
Senator D. M. Wells: Ms. Cote, I think I heard you say that it was positive or beneficial in contaminated sites because it is economic opportunity for Indigenous people to be active in the clean-up opportunity. That just doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t think there is any good news in a contaminated site that has an effect on water, could have an effect on water, certainly has an effect on wildlife, so it is not a question. It doesn’t sit well with me when that is seen as a positive or an opportunity.
Ms. Cote: I would agree with you. I do not think contaminated sites and their impacts on Indigenous communities — there are no silver linings there.
The point I had intended to make was that as the program has evolved, since its inception, one of the things that has been put in place is a greater understanding of the impacts that these sites have on Indigenous communities, particularly in communities where the sites are actually on reserve or in the North in their traditional territories with land claims.
Through the FCSAP program, there are increased opportunities for Indigenous businesses to be engaged in the remediation activities as part of Canada’s reconciliation approach. I completely agree with you that there are no positives with contaminated sites, but there are some advancements in the program that allow us to look at these sites and work with our partners that are impacted so that in the remediation efforts, there are some benefits to Indigenous communities as well as businesses to participate in the remediation activities in a way that makes sense to them and their communities. Mr. Wright has explained a little bit about how that is happening in the North, where communities are very much engaged in the projects and in the sites, and there is a range of that engagement in southern Canada as well.
Senator Hartling: I’m new tonight. I’m stepping in for somebody. This is a lot of new information. I want to thank you for being here. I also sit on the Committee on Indigenous Peoples, so I do know a lot about Aboriginal issues. To follow up with what Senator Wells said, it is tragic that Indigenous people are in these situations and we are trying to help them.
I know you know more than I do. Just to kind of help for folks at home too, do you know the impacts on the health and wellness of the Indigenous people? Have you studied that? Is that something that you know about? How do you engage Indigenous people in this process? I’m sure there is some lack of trust and things going on there. Can you tell us more about that?
Ms. Leach: Certainly, I can start with that. I just wanted to point out that during our audit we spoke with many of the Indigenous communities in all three territories, and we recognize that this is a significant issue in these territories.
We spoke with them, and they told us that they felt that the federal government had missed opportunities to advance on reconciliation commitments and to leverage the large remediation projects, some of which, of course, are billions of dollars.
Some of the specific concerns that they expressed included a lack of meaningful engagement, consultation and consideration of their input and decision making; a lack of capacity of the communities and administrative burden; and a lack of equitable provision and limited to non-existent socio-economic benefits. So we made some recommendations to that effect that the department accepted, but we agree, and we did look at that to the extent that we could in our audit. I’m sure Mr. Wright could answer some of the details.
Mr. Wright: Thank you very much. Maybe I will start, and I think Georgina Lloyd may be well placed to add some additional detail.
So to the point of contaminated sites — there is no silver lining to contaminated sites, but as Nicole Cote indicated, many of the contaminated sites were created on the traditional territories of Indigenous people, and so engaging them and trying to work in partnership to create economic benefits are critically important. We can always do better. There is no question about that. But we are working through co-management regimes with Indigenous communities, creating community benefits agreements, procurement framework agreements. The Giant Mine, for example, since 2017, $299 million of the contracts have been awarded to Indigenous businesses, which is 54% of the total contracts.
So across the contaminated sites — and we have targets that we have established. They are aspirational targets, and in not all cases do we hit all of those targets, but we are seeing in the 30%, 40%, sometimes 50% of contractual business opportunities, employment opportunities in the 20%. I pass it over to Georgina Lloyd to provide some greater details.
Georgina Lloyd, Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you so much to the committee for the question and the opportunity to present. Thank you as well for allowing me to participate virtually today so I can be here in the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council to meet specifically on this issue with Yukon First Nations.
I’ll respond to the question in two different ways. How do we engage with Indigenous peoples? First of all, I would speak to the Northern regulatory framework which is different in the North than it is in the South. I know there was some discussion about permitting and regulatory functions and who is providing the approval for these types of projects and for new mining developments or any new developments. Those go through a co-management regime which is managed jointly. This regime is born out of modern treaties. It is systems, institutions of public governments. So co-management boards like the Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Board, like the Mackenzie Valley Resource Economic Board. These boards play a function in permitting and resourcing and environmental assessment, and all of the decisions are co-managed between territorial governments, the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples, and they are required as part of the treaties. That process in itself is one way Indigenous partners across territories can engage in decision making.
Then the other piece would be specific to projects. Every project that we manage we have a governance mechanism and an ability to engage with Indigenous partners. In the 2023-24 fiscal year, we provided more than $8 million for partners to come to the table and just have conversations with us. Of course, we work at the pace of partners, and it is a voluntary space for them to enter.
I would give the example of the Giant Mine in this case, because it is quite a substantial remediation project. We have two governance bodies, so the Giant Mine Advisory Committee and also the Socio-Economic Advisory Body. The Yellowknives Dene First Nation, who is local and has borne the most impacts from this mine site, sits on both of those committees so they can work with us at the table and help us do things like develop remediation plans.
In addition to that, we work bilaterally with Yellowknives Dene First Nation, and we have five individual agreements with them to accord to their different needs and interests in Giant Mine. One is just about the environmental agreement, how do we approach the environment together and how do we interpret the requirements together. Another one is about community benefits. We heard about that and how we might advance and achieve socio-economic benefits at the community level.
The third one is a procurement framework agreement, so how they might be more competitive should they wish to participate in the procurement processes for the remediation activities. A good example here is some partners have told us, for example, they want to be discreet in terms of how they build capacity. We know some partners want to build capacities to offer camps, and they put all of their energy and focus into camps, so we help them build the types of capacity they need to be competitive in these markets to offer that type of service.
Then the two other agreements we have with Yellowknives Dene First Nation are the Collaborative Process Protocol Agreement — which is essentially our shared understanding of how we’ll move forward together on the historical legacy. This mine operated for a long time and had significant impacts to Yellowknives Dene, so this is us coming together and agreeing that we will work together on how we manage the response to that legacy issue into the future.
Finally, you would have saw in 2022 we had an apology and compensation agreement with the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, and we provided funding for them to do their own research on the historical legacy impacts to their communities, and that will pave the way for how we address those legacy issues into the future.
Senator Hartling: I don’t think I heard this, but do you not deal with any of the health and wellness issues that might come from contamination? I’m just curious about that, because it seems to me that there must be some. Is that part of the work or not?
Ms. Lloyd: Certainly, we are regulated. There is a regulatory framework to actually permit a mine to open, but then there are also other regulatory functions. So if we think about health and wellness and the question earlier about drinking water, there are regulatory frameworks in place across Canada, some of them at the federal level for fisheries, for example. So we respect those requirements. That would be where a lot of health and wellness elements and standards come from.
In addition to that, it is really driven by what the interests are of the Indigenous partner and how they would like to move forward to address their health and wellness elements.
Senator Hartling: Are there issues that came up in the past? Is that something that is involved in this process or not?
Ms. Lloyd: In the case of Giant Mine, I would say that will be captured as part of the apology and compensation. So we have provided funding to Yellowknives Dene First Nation, and they are undertaking their own research about the historical impacts which could include health and wellness impacts, cultural impacts or whatever impacts they would like to explore. When they are done their research, we will come together, and part of our collaborative protocol is how we’ll work on that into the future to address and respond to that in a meaningful way.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: We have been talking a lot about two mines, the Faro Mine and the Giant Mine, and these two projects are only at phase seven of the ten-step process. They are not remediated already, yet they have been in existence since — when was this? A long time. And Giant Mine was closed in 2004, so I don’t understand why we couldn’t find the owner and put some liability on them.
What is the calendar? When are we going to finish the remediation of these 24,000 sites?
Ms. Leach: When the program was initiated in 2005, the goal was to reduce the liability by 2020. That was the first phase —
Senator Galvez: By 2020?
Ms. Leach: By 2020, yes. As has been described, the program started with just a few thousand sites at the time and now we have 24,000. It has grown significantly.
But in terms of the timelines for when Giant Mine and Faro Mine will be remediated, those are in the chapter — for example, it is going to take 33 years to remediate Giant Mine and 20 to 25 for Faro Mine. These are very long-term projects.
Senator Galvez: I put myself in the shoes of Indigenous people, and I will say you are offering me now an economy of remediation. This is what you are offering me — participation in the remediation economy of these two messes, Giant Mine and Faro Mine, when, at this stage, I should be monitoring the quality of water, biodiversity, nature, rangers and parks. How do they take this situation that instead of taking care and protecting, they are giving them another set of economies, a lot of money, billions that come from the government, but for remediation of contaminated water or contaminated soil, health issues?
Mr. Wright: Thank you very much for the question. There is no question; this is not straightforward and it is very complex.
Maybe to unpack a few things, many of these sites have devolved to Canada. Giant Mine closed in 2004, and it didn’t automatically become a responsibility of Canada. Many of these sites are like that. It took several years before they were transferred to Canada as a backstop as the custodian of last resort to step in and work to address the environmental damage and to return the land.
As you have indicated, many times these mining sites were in operation on traditional Indigenous territory. So there are — and I can’t speak for Indigenous partners on this — a range of emotions and reactions. Some Indigenous communities certainly want to try to turn the page and get economic benefits, capacity building and grow their nation from a financial perspective.
Others are very much focused on the conservation side of it and making sure that there are no downstream impacts to their nation and are, perhaps, less interested in the economic aspect here.
As Ms. Lloyd indicated, we work in partnership, in co-management regimes, and their interests are brought to the table, and those inform the approach on remediation. The remediation plans are, in many instances, developed together. It is not a Government of Canada perspective that we just march on with.
The Chair: Some are bothered by the fact that Canada is a big loser here. We’re having to pay significant sums. There must be a lot of conflicts and litigation among the previous owners and the Government of Canada. I’m sure all the previous owners would prefer to say, “No, no, that’s not my problem, and the regime was different.” Yet the Canadian government, I presume, must be very firm in its views, saying, “No, it is an obligation of the owner.” Therefore, I presume it is a lot of litigation. There must be files two to three feet high, because this is complicated stuff. I hope the government doesn’t back off too quickly on these issues. Could you make a comment about that?
Mr. Wright: Again, it is outside my area of expertise, but I would say that the regulatory regime has changed a lot over the past decades. In previous decades, whenever a company went insolvent or declared bankruptcy, I don’t believe there were many tools or levers. There are certainly more tools and levers today, including the financial security that we spoke about earlier.
The Chair: Any other questions? If there are no more questions, I thank you very much for being with us. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)