Evidence of meeting #43 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Committe Member, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
Thank you for the question. I'll try to answer it in terms of both situations, one down in the place where Ross River--
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I don't mind if you take all of the time I have left, even four or five minutes, to respond, since I want to be clear on this.
Executive Committe Member, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
Okay.
With regard to first nations that have settlements, if a project is in their traditional territory but not on their settlement land, there's a difference; traditional territory is very large and they have different settlement land. If a project is on their settlement land, they are the ones who will decide whether the project proceeds or not. They issue the approvals and so on.
If it's on their traditional--
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Excuse me for interrupting you, but what you are saying is very important. The First Nation is the party to decide whether or not the project will go forward. Did I hear you correctly?
Executive Committe Member, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
It gets very complicated, but generally, on some settlement lands, there are surface and subsurface rights, while some have only surface rights.
If a project is to go on first nation land where they have both surface and subsurface rights, that first nation is the decision body under YESAA and they will make that determination.
What happens in areas where there's not a claim, such as Ross River, is that our legislation still applies, and to all the Yukon. In the case of a project proceeding down by Watson Lake, which is in an unsettled area, we still assess the project the same as we would in Old Crow or anywhere else.
What we have done is include the first nation when we look at the project proposal to determine adequacy. They are part of providing input into the assessments we conduct. Also, there's an obligation under the legislation that before the government decision-making body issues what's called a decision document, it must consult with those first nations that do not have final agreements. Our legislation puts in an extra step of consultation that's required.
But for us, in all levels of our assessment, we include Ross River and those unsettled first nations the same as we include any of the first nations that are settled. Also, those first nations are funded by DIAND with a certain amount of money to participate in YESAA assessments.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I just want to say that this is a good example to emulate. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Thank you, Mr. Lemay.
Now we'll go to Ms. Crowder for seven minutes, followed by Mr. Rickford.
Go ahead, Ms. Crowder.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Stanton.
Thank you for appearing before the committee. Sadly, I also was not on the trip to the Yukon, although I have been in the Yukon in the past. It's beautiful country.
Mr. Mills, I just want to follow up on something you said. You made a distinction between the settlement lands and traditional territory. What happens in a traditional territory for a band that has settlement land? Is that handled differently?
Executive Committe Member, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
Thank you for the question.
On large-level projects that go to the executive committee, there is a statutory obligation or requirement for a proponent to consult with affected communities and affected first nations prior to submitting a proposal to YESAA.
In the case of our traditional territory, for any project that is partially or totally in one of those traditional territories, there is a statutory requirement for consultation--on the proponent.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Just to interrupt for a second, you said that on settlement land it's the first nations who decide whether a project goes ahead. What happens on traditional territories?
Executive Committe Member, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
On the settlement lands there are so many blocks, even with my own first nation, the Vuntut Gwitchin in Old Crow, that many projects tend to cover more than one jurisdiction. So we issue one recommendation for an assessment. I'll give you a good example.
We had a large power-line project. In the end, there were three decision bodies and regulators: the Yukon government, the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, and the Selkirk First Nation. All three received their recommendations and all three issued what they call a decision document.
All three agreed with our recommendations, which was good, and then they issued whatever regulatory authorizations they needed to, such as land use permits.
Executive Committe Member, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
It's complicated, but it has worked.
That's why initially everybody was wondering if this was going to work or not. The fact is that it has worked. There have been many cases where you have a first nation and, for instance, a federal decision authority like DFO where they work together to make sure they agree. There's a federal coordination regulation that says different decision bodies are going to work together to try to come up with the same decision on a project. So far, I don't believe they've ever gone against each other.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
That's great. That's good news.
Mr. Robertson, you indicated that in the land use planning where the proponents have a proposal to go ahead that's outside of the land use plan, at this point there is no requirement for an amendment to the land use plan. That's a bit of a surprising statement.
I was on a municipal council. We used to have official community plans and we needed to do an amendment--a community process around amending the official community plan--if something came forward that council was recommending. I'm surprised that you don't require an amendment on the land use plan or that there isn't a requirement.
Council Member, Yukon Land Use Planning Council
I must admit that as a planner I was surprised as well when it came up. I think the way it was envisioned was that in the YESAA process, being at the back end of dealing with a specific proposal, the assessor would have and has a responsibility to work with a proponent to try to see how much can be done to bring a project into alignment.
But what do you do when you have a situation where it says this should be a conservation area and the proponents have found a significant mineral deposit? There is ambiguity there, and basically it's up to the parties to make the decision. If it's too much of a conflict and the YESAA process recommended that the proposal go ahead, the obligation would be on the parties to say no, it shouldn't, not until an amendment is done.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
If the parties did agree on a project and it went ahead through the YESAA process, doesn't that undermine the land use plan? Doesn't that set a precedent?
Council Member, Yukon Land Use Planning Council
Yes. It does in my eyes.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
It seems to me that it's pretty fundamental.
Mr. McKinnon or Mr. Mills, I don't know if you have a comment on that.
Chair of the Board, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
The only comment I have is that Ian keeps referring to us as the rear end of the project, which I take total exception to.
Council Member, Yukon Land Use Planning Council
I didn't say the ass end. You're the rear end.
Chair of the Board, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
We really believe in the land planning process because we feel that it is going to make our job that much easier. In areas where there isn't land use planning, I take.... Well, in the Champagne-Aishihik traditional area, there's a block of land where we're getting application after application for agricultural purposes, on an almost daily basis. We've now refused about 15 applications, but our staff has to go through the total process of assessing every application because there's no land use plan.
The Champagne and Aishihik First Nations have said that because of wildlife movement and because of different traditional cultural pursuits in that area, the land is not suited for agricultural purposes. But without the land use plan, every time we get an application, we have to go through the whole assessment process in coming up with the recommendations. There's a small Kluane land use plan in the area, but not a total plan, and Champagne-Aishihik is objecting to the agricultural applications. We've turned down about 15 of them. We wouldn't have to do all of that extra work if the land use--
Chair of the Board, Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board
Absolutely.