Bill S-6 (Historical)

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act

An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act

Part 1 amends the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act to provide that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 does not apply in Yukon, to allow for the coordination of reviews of transboundary projects, to establish time limits for environmental assessments and to establish a cost recovery regime. It also amends that Act to provide for binding ministerial policy directions to the Board and the delegation of any of the Minister’s powers, duties and functions to the territorial minister, and allows for a member of the board who is participating in a screening or review to continue to act for that purpose after the expiry of their term or their removal due to a loss of residency in Yukon, until decision documents are issued. In addition, it amends that Act to clarify that a new assessment of a project is not required when an authorization is renewed or amended unless there has been any significant change to the original project.
Part 2 amends the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act to modify the maximum term of certain licences, to establish time limits with respect to the making of certain decisions, to allow for the making of arrangements relating to security, to establish a cost recovery regime, to modify the offence and penalty regime and to create an administrative monetary penalty scheme.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

We'll call the meeting to order this morning. Welcome to the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Obviously this morning we'll be conducting our clause-by-clause review of Bill S-6. We do have a number of amendments that have been submitted and we'll run through them for each clause. We will be starting with clause 2 because clause 1 is the short title.

(On clause 2)

I see that we have a number of amendments here. Does anyone care to speak to those amendments? Just so that all members are aware, LIB-1 and NDP-1 are in fact identical amendments; therefore, we can only proceed with one. As well, we do have PV-1 and PV-2, which would amend the same lines as LIB-1. So if the latter is adopted, we could not move forward with them either.

Ms. Jones, do you wish to speak to LIB-1?

Aboriginal Affairs

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, northerners are deeply concerned about the position of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that the three territories are the same and that their environmental laws should be uniform.

In committee, the minister went on and on about how the government's plan is to have the same laws governing the land and water of all three territories. Any northerner would tell us that we cannot treat the territories the same.

This paternalistic approach by the Conservatives is completely wrong. Each territory is unique, with different demographics, different geography, different cultures, and different relationships with aboriginal governments. We have fought for years to create our identities. The minister and his Conservative colleagues instead tell northerners that that their uniqueness, issues, concerns, and political relationships are of no importance to them.

Northerners are fighting back. The NWT' s Tlicho First Nation has won an injunction against the creation of the environmental super-board, and Yukon first nations are already preparing their court case to stop Bill S-6.

Conservative Members from the north, listen up, the opposition will be heard at the ballot box.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

We've been reading some things into the record. Some folks have been able to testify and others aren't able to be here. I'm going to read into the record a letter from the Village of Mayo. They are writing and specifically supporting the four amendments proposed in Bill S-6.

The first piece I'll talk about, which touches on what Mr. Strahl was concluding with when he ran out of time, is around the policy direction and your comments on the trust piece. As well, without putting words into his mouth, I think that Mr. Strahl was just about to conclude that the parameters are very prescriptive in the legislation. There isn't a great deal of latitude that the minister has in prescribing policy direction.

The trust comes from the strength in the law itself, which is prescriptive in nature, about what the minister can do in terms of that policy direction. Indeed, that is what the community of Mayo reports here. It says, “Any policy direction given would have to be consistent with YESAA, the Umbrella Final Agreement, individual land claim agreements or other Yukon legislation.” They go on to continue to support the delegation of authority and timelines and provide some context to each of those pieces.

I want to ask Mr. Rifkind a quick question with the time I have left. It's around the specific “significant change” piece you talked about. I appreciate, on an initial glance, that it's vague. But is it necessarily vague? As Ms. Church pointed out, people have different perspectives on what “significant change” is, but projects will as well, and so will certain ecosystems and certain regions. In one area, a definition of “significant change” could be too broad for a very particular ecoregion. Something very, very small could be a significant change in a sensitive area, whereas in another area it could be absolutely nebulous.

We run a risk of having a really prescriptive definition of “significant change”, where we envision “significant” being rather large on a grand scale. That could actually be detrimental to the review of that project in the protection of the environment, because “significant”, in certain areas, could be very small in nature. Would you agree with that concept? Then, from that point, perhaps you could give us a recommendation on how you would go about defining “significant change” such that it doesn't paint us into that corner, whereby we can reflect that small changes can be significant as well.

[Karen Baltgailis, As an Individual]

Hello.

Thank you to the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council for hosting these hearings in their traditional territories.

Thank you to the standing committee for the invitation to present.

I was executive director of the Yukon Conservation Society from 2006 to 2014. Before that I was their forestry coordinator. During my time with the conservation society I participated in many YESAB assessments and took part in the YESAA five-year review.

My interest in presenting as an individual stems from the fact that Yukon first nations final agreements are the law for all Canadians. They are embedded in the Canadian Constitution. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act is one of the most important tools for implementing the final agreements. As you've heard here from so many first nations today, the Government of Canada is breaking Canadian law by unilaterally imposing four contentious amendments upon YESAA.

Like most of the speakers you've heard today, I oppose the following four changes to YESAA that are proposed in Bill S-6, the four changes that are so contentious. Of these four proposed amendments, to my knowledge, the public consultation for the YESAA five-year review only consulted about timelines, none of the others. As well, the consultant's report suggested longer timelines for assessments. The consultant's report did not recommend legislated timelines. Therefore, none of these changes to YESAA can validly be considered to stem from the five-year review.

I will briefly comment, just like everybody else, on each of the four proposed amendments.

Allowing the Government of Canada to delegate its powers to the Yukon government is not consistent with the Government of Canada's fiduciary duty. The Umbrella Final Agreement and individual land claims agreements were signed by all three parties. It's not consistent with the honour of the crown for Canada to abdicate these responsibilities. Furthermore, as a less directly involved government, one would hope that Canada would be less susceptible to local political motivations for approving projects, and should provide a more unbiased approach to assessments.

Allowing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to provide binding policy direction to the YESAA board is a very disturbing proposal. YESAB is meant to be an independent body, not subject to the political goals of the federal minister. The minister could influence things like timelines and what is considered an assessment. Looking at the four contentious changes proposed by Canada to Bill S-6, one can predict that this kind of policy direction would likely be aimed at weakening YESAA.

Regarding the proposed legislated timelines for assessments, as you know, some of the assessments that go through YESAA are extremely complex. To do its job, YESAB needs the time to comprehensively review projects, get expert advice, and solicit more information from the proponent. First nations and the public also need time to do research, possibly engage experts, and respond.

It appears to me, from looking at the YESAA website, that the timelines proposed in Bill S-6 for executive committee screenings would reduce the executive committee screening from a maximum of approximately 30 months to 16 months—so about half the time. There's of course the risk that as a result there would be inadequate assessments. Furthermore, the board's policies and guidelines already include timelines for assessments. YESAB has the knowledge and experience to determine appropriate timelines. In my opinion, the federal government does not.

The proposal that no new assessments would be required for the renewal of projects, or amendments to permits and licences, if a decision body deems there are no significant changes is frankly frightening. I'll give you an example of the kind of situation that this change could make possible. It's an issue that is very top-of-mind for Yukoners right now.

Let's say an oil and gas company underwent an environmental assessment of a drilling program that did not include hydraulic fracturing. Later they want to amend the project to include this controversial process. The Yukon government could decide that no new environmental assessment was required, and the Yukon public would never even know. The impacts of fracking from the project might never be assessed.

But even if a project hasn't changed really significantly and the company is applying for a renewal of a permit, the environmental and socio-economic conditions surrounding the project may well have changed due to things like climate change. There may be changes to wildlife populations in the area for completely other reasons. Water quality impacts, cumulative assessments—all of those things need to be looked at even if a project doesn't involve significant changes.

Furthermore, just even extending the time period of a licence does imply significant changes to the project. With a mining project, for example, there are more tailings, more water impacts, more waste rock to dispose of, and so on. Of course extended time periods for projects need to be assessed.

In conclusion, I'm concerned that a number of organizations that had important information to contribute were not able to present to these hearings. For example, I understand that Mike Smith from the Assembly of First Nations was not given an opportunity to present, although he wanted to. He was one of the negotiators of Yukon land claims. He would have been an expert witness who would have made an important contribution.

I was also surprised that the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board was not allowed to make a presentation as a land claims mandated body. Furthermore, the grassroots organization Yukoners Concerned About Oil and Gas Exploration and Development was also denied the opportunity.

I have to wonder what other well-informed and relevant people and organizations were also excluded from the process.

I appreciate the standing committee making the effort to come all the way to Yukon to hear from Yukoners. I have to admit that I'm a little nervous that these eleventh-hour consultations may not have a lot of meaning, when Bill S-6 has already had two readings. I very much hope that this standing committee will prove me wrong and that you will advise the Government of Canada to uphold the laws of Canada by dropping the four controversial amendments to YESAA.

Thank you.

[Lewis Rifkind, Mining Analyst, Yukon Conservation Society]

Good afternoon, and welcome to Yukon. My name is Lewis Rifkind and I'm the mining analyst for the Yukon Conservation Society.

I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dun and Ta'an Kwach'an first nations.

The Yukon Conservation Society, or YCS, is a grassroots environmental non-profit organization, established in 1968. Our mandate is to pursue ecosystem well-being throughout Yukon and beyond, recognizing that human well-being is ultimately dependent upon fully functioning and healthy ecosystems. We have about 250 members and are currently active participants in land-use planning issues, energy consultations, outreach and environmental education, Yukon Water Board hearings, and Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act applications.

We regularly participate in the YESAA process. There isn't a month that goes by that YCS does not submit comments on a wide variety of projects. I checked over past records, and during 2014, I submitted to YESAA on behalf of YCS comments on 18 unique projects, and I’m but one of four employees at YCS who submit comments. We like to think our comments are helpful and informative to the YESAB staff so that the recommendations they prepare on projects ensure that impacts to the environment are minimized.

As you have probably heard before, we are concerned about four changes being proposed in Bill S-6. Our concerns are as follows. Clause 14 of Bill S-6 proposes adding the following after subsection 49(1):

49.1 (1) A new assessment of a project or existing project is not required when an authorization is renewed or amended unless, in the opinion of a decision body for the project, there is a significant change to the original project that would otherwise be subject to an assessment.

The term “significant change” is too vague and subjective. YCS is concerned that under this change, projects would be assessed once and then major expansions or cumulative minor expansions such as a mine developing further open pits or an oil company gradually drilling more wells within its existing lease area would not undergo the additional environmental assessments necessary to identify and develop mitigation for economic, environmental, and societal impacts. This is not acceptable.

Second is modification to the time frames in clauses 16 and 17 and subclause 23(2) in Bill S-6. I won't read the wording, but YCS is of the opinion that these proposed changes would shorten the timelines for environmental assessments. Under current legislation, the clock starts ticking only once all the documentation submitted by the project proponent has been reviewed and is deemed adequate. Bill S-6 would start the clock as soon as documentation was submitted by the proponent, not after an adequacy review had been completed.

The proposed changes would run the risk of reducing the time available to conduct a thorough adequacy review. This review is critical to ensuring all appropriate documentation has been submitted prior to the assessment commencing.

The third concern of YCS regards policy direction. Clause 34 of Bill S-6 would add the following:

121.1 (1) The federal minister may, after consultation with the Board, give written policy directions that are binding on the Board with respect to the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act.

This proposed change would seem to undo the intent of Yukon devolution, whereby responsible government was transferred to Yukon territorial legislature and away from Ottawa. Furthermore, the proposed change undermines the very foundation of YESAB as a transparent, public process through which all stakeholders are provided the opportunity to learn about and submit comments on projects proposed in Yukon.

Given that the nature of future binding policy directions from Ottawa is unknown, will there be any consultation with Yukoners prior to orders being issued from Ottawa that will have economic, social, and environmental implications for the people and the environment in Yukon?

YESAA is meant to be arm’s length from interference by politicians, proponents, and special interest groups. Let's keep it that way.

A fourth concern regards delegation of the federal minister's powers. Bill S-6in clause 2 would replace section 6 of YESAA with the following:

6.1 (1) The federal minister may delegate, in writing, to the territorial minister all or any of the federal minister’s powers, duties or functions under this Act, either generally or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation.

This proposed change does a disservice to the honour of the crown as a signatory of the Umbrella Final Agreement, from which YESAA was created. The UFA is a political document between the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon, and Yukon first nations as represented by the Council of Yukon First Nations. This has always been seen as a tripartite agreement between these three levels of government.

This proposed change could be interpreted as the federal government abandoning its constitutionally entrenched responsibilities under the UFA by delegating federal obligations to the Yukon Government. This is unacceptable.

As a helpful suggestion, YCS respectfully suggests that Bill S-6 could include a clause that lays out a periodic review of the YESAA legislation. This will ensure that YESAA is reviewed on a regular basis, such as once a decade, and is amended when necessary in an up-to-date and timely fashion.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have any questions, of course I'm available.

[Felix Geithner, Director, Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon]

Good day, members of the standing committee, and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you.

My name is Felix Geithner. I'm a tourism operator and a member of the board of the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon, also known as TIA Yukon, which represents over 400 tourism businesses in the territory. I've been asked by the board to speak to you on behalf of the tourism industry today about Bill S-6.

First, let me tell you a bit about tourism in Yukon. Tourism is a major driver of Yukon's economy. According to the 2013 Yukon business survey, tourism generated approximately $250 million in 2012 and constituted almost 5% of Yukon's GDP that year. Tourism visitation has grown by an average of 3% per year from 2004 to 2012, with 2013 being the best year on record for tourism visitation. With this fall's announcement of an additional $3.6 million over two years from the federal and territorial governments to go towards a tourism marketing campaign, we expect visitation and tourism revenue numbers to increase even more in the coming years.

It's important for you to get a snapshot of how important tourism is to Yukon's economy. Far too often, people downplay the importance of tourism because its successes are difficult to measure and its profits are scattered throughout a multitude of businesses and sectors. With mining, it's so much easier to draw a line from A to B to show exactly where the money is coming from.

Even when people stop and think about the word “mining”, the mind conjures up images of gold and silver, diamonds and riches, and exploration with cash as the reward. The word “tourism” makes people think about exploring. Not many people think about the monetary value of tourism, but they should. When you add up the revenue from airlines, hotels, car rental agencies, wilderness guiding operations, outfitters, museums, aurora-viewing businesses, plus a big percentage of restaurants, retail shops, and other more indirect sources, tourism stands out as a cash cow, one that if properly cared for will produce forever.

Tourism is a big business in Yukon. It's a slow-growing, steady economy for us that's needed in the territory when Yukon's mining industry goes through one of its bust cycles, as has been the case in the past three years. It makes no sense to make changes such as the ones proposed in Bill S-6 unless one knows for a fact that they will not be detrimental to Yukon's tourism industry and are certain to benefit Yukon's mining industry. TAI Yukon calls both these points into question.

In the letter that TAI Yukon wrote to Yukon's MP, Ryan Leef, dated November 21, 2014, we expressed our concern that one of our partners, the Council of Yukon First Nations, was not properly consulted on all points during this process, especially given that YESAA is the cornerstone of the Umbrella Final Agreement. In fact, most of the Yukon public and key stakeholders of the business community, such as TAI Yukon, were not consulted on the bill prior to its introduction. In our letter, we also stipulated that taking land use planning decisions away from the territory will ultimately give tourism operators in Yukon less of a say over land use issues where resource extraction interests conflict with the interests of tourism businesses. These issues continue to trouble the tourism industry.

The most pertinent question isn't why Bill S-6 should be prevented from being passed, but why it was ever put forward in the first place in its current form. On April 22, 2010, Yukon Senator Dan Lang addressed a crowd of potential investors as the keynote speaker at the Yukon Forum in New York. According to a news release on the senator's website, Senator Lang praised the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board. He described YESAB as “implementing responsible environmental and social guidelines while providing certainty to investors”.

Even when the senator introduced the bill four years later on June 10, 2014, he acknowledged that Yukon's regulatory system has been a model for the rest of the country. The reason he provided for introducing a bill that proposed sweeping changes to a fundamental part of this regulatory regime was the need to involve and maintain a competitive and predictable regulatory system that remains competitive internationally.

Taking something that is a model for the country and giving it a drastic overhaul requires more than an inside design job. Throwing black paint at a white house isn't a renovation; it's a mess.

The extent of the mess this bill has created reached all new levels on November 28, 2014, when the president of the Casino Mining Corporation in Yukon wrote about “Bill S-6 and the negative impact this is having on the territory's mineral industry”. The Casino Corporation believes that if YESAA has the full support of all levels of government, it will provide greater certainty for the mineral industry.

From TIA Yukon's perspective, Bill S-6 is a shoddy piece of legislation that sows discord rather than the certainty it sets out to create. More than this, the proponents of this bill have set an adversarial tone in Yukon with Yukon first nations and a number of key organizations and businesses through their attempt to ram it through without adequate consultation. Consultation requires two-way communication. If one party doesn't believe that there was adequate consultation, then there was not adequate consultation.

To get a sense of the tone being set by the government in the House of Commons with regard to this bill, one needs only to listen to Alberta MP John Barlow, who sits on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. On March 11 Mr. Barlow said:

We have to take some very aggressive steps to get Yukon back to where it was before and regain that success as a resource extraction economy.

TIA Yukon believes that Bill S-6 and these aggressive steps should be abandoned by the Government of Canada in favour of meaningful discussions and collaboration with Yukon first nations and all sectors that constitute Yukon's business community, including the tourism industry.

Thank you.

[Amber Church, Conservation Campaigner, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Yukon Chapter]

Thank you.

I'd like to start by thanking the committee for travelling to Yukon and taking the time to hear from Yukoners on this important bill.

CPAWS Yukon works with aboriginal and public governments, local organizations, businesses, and citizens to ensure the natural wealth we enjoy today is available for our children tomorrow. Here in the territory we have about 280 members from all walks of Yukon society who demand responsible development that will benefit sustainable communities nestled in healthy, ecologically rich environments. We are currently active participants in land use planning, energy consultations, outreach to and engagement of the public in sustainability initiatives, and of course YESAA.

Our organization has some serious concerns about four sections of the proposed amendments to YESAA that are included in Bill S-6. I imagine you've probably heard about some of these earlier today, but I will reiterate them.

With regard to the concept of “significant change” as outlined in proposed subsection 49.1(1), CPAWS Yukon feels that the term “significant change” is both too vague and too subjective. We are concerned that once the project's initial phase has undergone assessment, additional phases, such as major expansions or cumulative minor expansions, could be exempted from screening by YESAB. This amendment increases the challenge of assessments, as not all impacts can be foreseen at the time of the project's initial application phase and may result in negative impacts to the environment, the economy, and Yukon communities.

Our second set of concerns deal with the amendment to the timelines, which are included in proposed subsections 56(1), 58(1), and 23(2). These proposed changes would shorten the timelines for environmental assessments, making it difficult for the YESAA board and staff to meet their duties and obligations. This may ultimately result in the rushing of complex assessments, which will put our environment and communities at unnecessary risk.

Under current legislation, all documentation submitted by the proponent must have undergone an adequacy review before the clock starts ticking. The changes proposed in Bill S-6 start the clock as soon as documentation is submitted by the proponent, before an adequacy review has taken place. This amendment poses the risk of significantly reducing the time available to conduct a thorough adequacy review, a critical step to the overall assessment process.

Our third set of concerns deals with the binding policy direction as indicated in proposed section 121.1. We feel that this proposed change appears to be at odds with the intent of the Yukon devolution agreement, which transferred powers from the Government of Canada to the Yukon government.

Further, and probably more significantly, we feel that these amendments jeopardize the independence and impartiality of the assessment process in Yukon and have the potential to permit political interference in what is currently an independent body. YESAB was founded to be a transparent and public process through which all stakeholders are provided the opportunity to learn about and to submit comments on projects proposed in Yukon. The ability of the federal minister to dictate future binding policy directions has the potential to undermine sound environmental stewardship through the systematic stripping away of previously held standards for assessable activities.

Our fourth set of concerns deal with the delegation of federal powers as outlined in proposed section 6. This proposed change does a disservice to the honour of the crown as a signatory of the Umbrella Final Agreement, the UFA, which originally prompted the creation of YESAA. The UFA is a political document between the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon, and Yukon first nations, and, as such, has always been viewed as a tripartite agreement between these three levels of government. This proposed change could be interpreted as the federal government abandoning its constitutionally entrenched responsibilities under the UFA by delegating federal obligations to Yukon.

Finally, we would like to note that YESAA is a made-in-the-Yukon piece of legislation, and we feel it addresses a set of unique Yukon perspectives that should be honoured and preserved moving forward, not cast aside in the name of conformity.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

[Stuart Schmidt]

I hope so. I asked people to continue talking. It's always good to talk instead of going to war. Why not talk right up until the last minute, if we can?

I don't know enough about how this all works with legislation, how proper consultation works, and how it would have to be done, but I'm sure if there's a real will on the part of all the parties concerned, some sort of resolution could be found and Bill S-6 could go to the House of Commons.

That would be my absolute preference. I would love to see things go to the House of Commons. Maybe we can even make it better than it is right now through further consultation. I'm sure many people in industry would be more than happy to sit down and act as technical help for these discussions.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Smith, I appreciated your comments towards the end there. You made some valid points, and they're well taken.

I'm not sure if you were present this morning when the premier talked about finding a path forward and, indeed, extended an opportunity to engage in bilateral discussions to work on the engagement of Bill S-6. He certainly promoted the passage of the bill, but he recognized clearly that continued consultation and greater work could be undertaken on this bilateral piece. The position of Yukon first nations is that their preference would be a trilateral discussion to that end, and we certainly take that consideration under direct advisement here as a committee.

You posited that industry would bring value to the table from a technical point of view and would allow your concerns to be understood more clearly. Taking that route, are you confident there might be some solution to these four outstanding pieces?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations today.

I have a statement that I want to put on the record before I get into my questions. It's from an earlier debate as to whether we throw out the four contentious recommendations that are in this bill or leave them. I think there is an opportunity to sort through those recommendations to the satisfaction of the three levels of government and the parties involved. I want to point out that in the presentations this morning Grand Chief Massie did say in her presentation that their “preference is reconciliation”, and that it would be the process they would prefer to undertake.

I also have a quote from Chief Fairclough. He says that concerns were raised by Yukon first nations to federal officials and that they “have not engaged in...discussion in good faith with Yukon first nations to address our concerns”. They are obviously wanting to do that. There is a desire to do that.

The other quote I would give you is from Chief Bill, who also outlined that first nations “have negotiated their final agreements...on a relationship based on respect, honesty, and trust” and who asks why Bill S-6 is allowed to work “outside of those principles”, when that “creates and fuels animosity for all Yukoners”.

I wanted to put that on the record simply because I have sensed, in listening to the presentations today, a tremendous willingness to work towards a consensus and a collaborative relationship here to define the terms and principles of the bill in a way that all levels of government can relate to. I just wanted to outline that.

My question is first of all to you, Mr. Morrison. I was interested to hear that in your experience in the last 10 years in dealing with YESAA you have seen changes for the best. Through practice, I'm assuming, through using the process, all parties have been able to define better understanding and better ways to move forward. For a lot of the things that we're dealing with today, especially timelines, do you feel that they can be resolved and worked out through dialogue within the YESAA process and do not have to be legislated by the Parliament of Canada?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Really at the heart of this legislation, YESAA and Bill S-6, is to ensure that we maintain our environmental integrity in this territory and that we maintain our socio-economic responsibilities with that. Those two things involve some very different measures, but both are equally important.

Can you perhaps describe, say, from an industry point of view, how committed to ensuring environmental integrity the people you work with in the placer mining industry are? Do you have examples of that? Also, how committed are you to making sure you participate in the socio-economic responsibilities we all have in our regions and in the territory?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for that comment.

Mr. Schmidt, thank you for your testimony. Anecdotally, you've provided some really tangible examples from your experience of where delays can occur at the district office level. You mentioned that you think somebody should be able to provide policy to the district office, as well as to the board, to ensure consistency in the application. Of course, in part this binding policy piece from the federal minister to the board is designed to provide that consistent application of policy. The one thing I think has gotten the message out a little bit, which does warrant clear communication, is that the binding policy direction envisioned by Bill S-6 with respect to the federal minister's role is not allowed to interfere with any project currently under way or completed. What you're talking about, what is envisioned, is really an administrative type of thing.

Can you speak to whether, if administrative consistency and policy direction were provided at the district office level, that would in turn benefit your ability to work, and, indeed, your ability to adhere to the environmental and socio-economic preservation that we demand in this territory under YESAA?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Or that they remove those four pieces from Bill S-6 and then deal with those three pieces so that the rest can go forward.

[Samson Hartland, Executive Director, Yukon Chamber of Mines]

Thank you, Mr. Thrall.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the parliamentary standing committee.

I'd like to follow up Mr. Thrall's comments with some aspects and perspectives with respect to intergovernmental relations.

The Yukon Chamber of Mines enjoys a positive, constructive relationship with all levels of government. Working with federal, first nations, and Yukon governments, the Yukon Chamber of Mines contributes by ensuring that technical and industry expertise is provided to all parties when working towards creating socio-economic opportunities for communities and Yukoners.

Currently, the Yukon Chamber of Mines is working towards the production of an aboriginal consultation and engagement guidebook for proponents, in partnership with the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Government of Canada, and the Yukon government. This work is being undertaken in order to provide clarity on the consultation and engagement requirements of a proponent when looking to conduct activities that occur on traditional territory of Yukon first nations.

The Yukon Chamber of Mines has provided its long-standing support to the settlement of the Umbrella Final Agreement. As Yukoners, we believed that the UFA would provide certainty for industry and was the next step in respect to the evolution of first nations governments. However, as an industry organization we would be remiss if we did not articulate a concern from industry that the erosion of intergovernmental relations among parties to the UFA over Bill S-6 is creating a level of uncertainty that affects the attractiveness of Yukon as a jurisdiction to invest in.

As the trusted voice of mining in Yukon, representing a membership of more than 400, we urge all levels of government to move towards respectful dialogue and to work towards a way by which we can provide socio-economic opportunities for communities and Yukoners while respecting the environment in doing so.

Thank you.

[Allison Rippin Armstrong, Vice-President, Lands and Environment, Kaminak Gold Corporation]

I would like to thank Kwanlin Dün First Nation and Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in council for welcoming us into their traditional territory.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee to speak to Bill S-6, concerning proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. We appreciate the opportunity because, as a Yukon success story, Kaminak wants to ensure that we are governed by an accessible and stable regulatory regime.

My name is Allison Rippin Armstrong, and I am vice-president of lands and environment with Kaminak Gold Corp. Kaminak is a Canadian exploration company that has owned and explored mineral properties in all three of Canada's northern territories. We are currently focused on exploring and advancing the Coffee gold project located in central Yukon within the traditional territory of Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in.

Kaminak is committed to being a good neighbour to all stakeholders, including Yukon first nations, and to that end has engaged local first nations at every stage of the Coffee gold project. Kaminak continues to work closely with our local first nations leaders and communities to minimize project impacts and to create innovative educational and employment opportunities for first nation citizens. Going forward, Kaminak remains committed to being an industry leader in aboriginal engagement.

Kaminak supports regulatory reform that creates efficiencies, stability, and predictability in assessment and regulatory regimes. Stability and predictability create certainty that influences our investment decisions as a company and also attracts outside investment in our company and in the Yukon territory. That being said, Kaminak is concerned that the process through which YESAA is being amended is creating increased distrust between governments and uncertainty in the assessment and regulatory process for current and future projects in Yukon.

Specifically, the YESAA five-year review resulted in a number of recommendations, most of which were supported by the parties involved in the review, including Yukon first nations. We understand that some of the proposed amendments do not accurately reflect comments and recommendations raised during the five-year review, and as a result, instead of celebrating a historic alignment between the governments and Yukon first nations on most of the proposed amendments to YESAA, Yukon first nations have expressed a common position that they intend to take the federal government to court, if Bill S-6 is passed as proposed.

Kaminak is very concerned about this development, because court cases create assessment and regulatory uncertainty in addition to extraordinary delay, all of which erodes investor confidence.

Investment in mineral exploration and development is very mobile, and Yukon and Canada are competing in a global market. While investment in a low sovereign-risk country such as Canada is attractive to many investment institutions, the reality is that the mineral exploration industry has never been more globalized.

Since 2009 Kaminak has spent $91 million on exploring the Coffee gold project. Recently, Kaminak completed a preliminary economic assessment and transitioned into feasibility, which we aim to complete at the end of this year. A positive outcome could see Kaminak entering the assessment and permitting phase by mid-2016 and on track to build a gold mine by 2019-20.

Our Coffee gold project has yet to enter the YESAA process. If Bill S-6 is passed and challenged in court, the Coffee gold project and our presence in Yukon is uncertain. Kaminak urges the federal government to resume discussions with the first nations to work collectively toward reaching consensus on the proposed amendments to YESAA and avoid a court challenge.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the time and opportunity to share our views.