Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2015

[Brad A. Thrall]

Certainly it is. I think it's important to point out that I and certainly Mr. Light are speaking on behalf of an operator or of companies that have already been in that mode of operating. A number of companies are not yet into that phase and may not necessarily appreciate the importance of these amendments until once they do get into that phase of production. That's why it's Mr. Light and I who are speaking to these amendments, because we have so much direct experience with the fact that once you're into an operating mode, that's where these issues, if you will, really arise, and the challenges that they face.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

My concern is this. Two panels ago I asked a question, I believe to Chief Massie, about the current system. They said they want “significant change” removed. I asked what the common ground was between “significant change” and the current system and where they saw room to move. I didn't get an answer.

Sort of along the lines of what we heard previously from Mr. Strahl, where is the movement when the answer is “take it out”? That doesn't seem to me to deal with the problem.

[Brad A. Thrall]

I would agree that if that weren't in there, then we would see more of the same, if you will, with interpretation by different designated offices and different views of what “significant” means. Certainly with the status quo, as we see it today, I think we know what the results of that are. That's the issue that Mr. Light and I talked about today, how we see these timelines just continuing to grow longer and longer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you very much. I will....

Did you have a point of order?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

On a point of order, Chair, we still have 10 minutes left. We have enough for a couple more interventions if these groups are with us until three o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

We do have a schedule to try to keep to, of course, and we have to set up for the next panel as well.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

We have 15 minutes in between this panel and the next panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

We've been through all the members, but if there are one or two additional members who wish to speak—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

This is a very important discussion here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

—we can certainly entertain that. My apologies; I didn't realize we had the extra time in between.

Do I have any members who wish to ask additional questions?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'd like to continue on this vein that we've been on, which I think is fairly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Well, I'd have to see some consent here from the committee to have additional questions.

Could I have maybe one from each side, possibly? Having said that, I can give you an additional five minutes on each side.

Mr. Bevington, and then we'll see who else: Mr. Leef and Ms. Jones—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'll give you two of mine.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

We're sharing.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Fair enough. We're all in a big happy family here.

It's interesting how we're now focusing on these four amendments, because that's what we're here for. Really, everything else we haven't heard any discussion on. What we're getting down to now is whether we can see that the mining association would support removing two of these amendments, and whether the conversation could start up pretty quickly around first nations with the other two amendments.

The amendments are different in that the two amendments we're talking about, which really affect long-term power relationships in the Yukon, are the unilateral policy decisions and the delegation of authority. These are things that affect land claims directly and that are significant because they have a long-term process. If we're talking about the timeframes for assessments, you know that this subject will be coming back on the table in the next five years and we can have another discussion about it. It's the same thing with whether or not you have the reassessment of a project. You can talk about that again. But when you're talking about power, when it comes to the relationship between aboriginal government and public government, these are very serious topics. Those two amendments are really troublesome for first nations, I believe, because of that fact.

Could you see that being the compromise that could be struck?

[Samson Hartland]

Just to be clear, at the chamber organization that lobbies on behalf of our membership we're always about compromise and consensus building. That said, certainly we're not in a position to speak to the legislative abilities of the discussions around this moving forward. We just want to be able to provide value today on topics that we have experience with. That value comes in the timeline and reassessments. That's what we've come here to speak about today, and that's where we can provide value.

As for how to get the bill passed, it's above our pay grade, unfortunately.

[Allison Rippin Armstrong]

Can I answer Mr. Bevington's question as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

That will be at his discretion, of course. He did want to provide some time to Ms. Jones.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

That's fine.

[Allison Rippin Armstrong]

I just wanted to say that I think it's an excellent question. I think it's unfortunate that it got asked of us and not of the Yukon first nations this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I'll turn for the remaining two minutes to Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.

It's too bad we have to clew up, because I think if we could come to some consensus on how to go forward it would make things a whole lot easier for everyone. When the grand chief presented this morning, one thing she said was that their preference was reconciliation, talking a solution and not implementing one, whether it be unilaterally by the Government of Canada or by first nations government.

First of all, as the Chamber of Mines, don't you agree that respectful relationships with first nations people and governments are key to any development projects you want to do in the Yukon territory and in their lands? If you agree with that statement, putting all politics aside and just using good common sense, why would you not want to recommend that there be a solution that can be worked out through talking and discussion before this bill goes through the House of Commons?

I have to ask that question, because if you feel that way, it's the respectful way to do business.

[Samson Hartland]

Absolutely, and that was articulated in our opening comments.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Well, then, I'll ask the question that was already asked of you by me and by others today. Are you prepared to recommend to our committee today that there be further consultations between the Government of Canada and the first nations to work out the details of those four recommendations that are holding up the bill at this stage? Are you prepared to support that?

[Samson Hartland]

That's not our area of expertise.