Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[Chief Ruth Massie]

We asked them to, and there are two proponents. They want an agreement where if they support you, then you pay attention only to them. So how do you deal with both of them? It is proposed right now. We don't even know who we're dealing with. We know we have two different proponents. For them to ask us to sign agreements prematurely is ridiculous, and we're feeling caught in the middle. That's why the committees are saying they might need to go to Canada and ask for the appropriate support, so that we can do our own unbiased business with whoever we have to. Right now we're dealing with both.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll have to move along now.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I have a couple of questions for Ruth and Pearl. You wanted to know when the Government of Canada was going to consult first nations in the Yukon in regard to the proposed Alaska Highway pipeline project. There are legal obligations for consultation, and there are also land claims agreements. From what I can gather, a large portion of the pipeline will cross a number of first nations lands. Is it that they haven't consulted you because the project's time frame is so far out? Why are they not meeting their legal duty to consult? What's causing that?

When it comes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, there are two things. One is that you have a problem with how to define “vessel” for the purposes of the act. The other one seems to be an issue of personnel and timing. When somebody makes an application, you shouldn't have to wait a year to get a response. It has an impact upon your industry. Do you want both of these changed? It seems you want changes to accommodate at least the application process and then something to change...this is not easy to do, to make a regulatory change in Ottawa. We can make a recommendation, but I would think there are other users who would have something to say about this. I just want to get a sense of where your priorities would lie in these two different streams.

For Ms. Byram, you talked about having to cut the triple seven, the 777, bucking it right in two to get it through a pass.

[Jennifer Byram]

Yes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So you're saying there needs to be an investment in infrastructure, which is what we've heard from various other people here. That's a barrier. I would also say that it would probably present a good opportunity for Pelly Construction. So while it's a barrier, it could also be an opportunity. Would you not agree with me?

[Jennifer Byram]

Yes, our projects are in mining, but we also know how to build a road. It is a barrier when you have to cut your equipment apart to get it up here. It's the boxes of the 777 ore trucks. Yes, we would probably bid on that job to widen the road.

[Randy Clarkson]

I know it's hard to change legislation, but a lot of it is just inadequate knowledge of the local streams and inadequate personnel in the department. If there was somebody based in Whitehorse, he could actually drive out and look at the stream, instead of wondering if it was navigable or not, and instead of having a number of inspectors arrive at a placer mine site. The placer inspector comes at least once a year. So it only makes sense for him to be deputized in the same way he's deputized by DFO and Environment Canada to carry out their acts as well as inspections. Even though you may not be able to change the definition of a vessel, what you call “navigable” is subjective. Someone in the area would have a much better knowledge of that than someone in Edmonton or Winnipeg.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

These people who are deputized, who do they work for? Who pays them?

[Randy Clarkson]

They work for the Government of Yukon. They're Yukon placer inspectors. They work for the Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources. They're the regular mines inspectors. They have an agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans whereby they're allowed to enforce the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act as far as placer mines go. I believe they have a similar agreement with Environment Canada regarding metals and so on.

That type of arrangement would be very suitable for Transport Canada also. It would probably save them a pile of money as well, because they could off-load some of this onto the Yukon government.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you for that clarification.

[Chief Ruth Massie]

One of the responses we got back from the Government of Canada about supporting the proposed Alaska Highway pipeline project was that it is only a proposal at the moment, and not actually a project. They are focused on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, which is an all-Canadian pipeline.

They're looking at the Alaska Highway project as more of a U.S. focus. The outcome, of course, is going to be in the United States. Our issue is that we need to prepare, because once this project is approved, according to industry it'll just start steamrolling, and nobody is going to wait for us.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Russell.

I will now go to Mr. Duncan for five minutes. He'll be followed by Monsieur Gaudet.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Clarkson, you said that the fisheries department has deputized Yukon inspectors. You have a recommendation in here that KPMA be directly involved in the development and implementation of the fish habitat management system for placer mining. You know intimately what that means. We don't know what that means.

Is there an exercise or an initiative right now to change the way the fisheries act is applied in terms of placer mining in the Yukon?

[Randy Clarkson]

Five minutes is a very short time to explain the legislative background of placer mining, but in a nutshell these are two separate initiatives. DFO already has an agreement with the Yukon government to allow the inspectors to inspect on their behalf. In December 2002, the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Thibault, cancelled the previous placer authorization and would have basically put the entire placer industry out of work. That was overturned with a new agreement between Yukon first nations, the Government of Yukon, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Klondike Placer Mining Association. That originally was called the new placer regime. Now it's called a system for management of fish habitat.

Originally KPMA was a key stakeholder. We were part of the negotiations and the discussions. We have been phased out of it. It has gone back into DFO's bailiwick, and they are in the process of classifying streams and making different parts of that authorization under the fisheries act without, we feel, due consultation with the industry.

They're two separate issues. We have had good cooperation from DFO in the past. We were able to amend the minister's decision, which would have decimated the industry. We came up with a better management system and we just want to get back into that management system to make sure it works properly for the industry and for fish.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I understand.

For the record, is placer mining going on in other jurisdictions in Canada?

[Randy Clarkson]

Yes, it is, mainly in British Columbia. The area of Atlin has the most placer mining. The streams there are officially deregulated, which means they have very few restrictions. They're normally inspected once a year. I also work in the Atlin area, so I know it quite well.

There's a small amount of activity in the Quesnel and Cranbrook areas of British Columbia. They are much more heavily regulated. They are more of a total recycle system and of a much smaller nature. The people tend to be hobby miners, whereas the 130 operations here are people's bread and butter and how they make their living.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I have a question for Jennifer.

You talked about getting north of Muncho Lake and about Muncho Lake being a pinch point. How long a stretch of the Alaska Highway are we talking about?

[Jennifer Byram]

I'm not sure which places are exactly the worst, but from probably just outside Toad River to Watson Lake. So it's what? A couple of hundred kilometres?

[Randy Clarkson]

Two hundred kilometres just to Toad River from Fort Nelson. It would be about three hundred kilometres to Watson.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Stewart-Cassiar is not an option?

[Jennifer Byram]

No.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

There's a lot of talk about dealing with British Columbia and the Yukon. Now you're talking about bidding on jobs in NWT, and you're not going to do that any more. We've heard this issue that the three territories are quite separate entities in many respects, and there seem to be a lot of barriers in labour and other things as well. I was wondering if you've had any experience at all with Nunavut.

[Jennifer Byram]

No, we have not been that far, as far as Nunavut.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

As far as you know, there's no barrier to bidding in Nunavut.