Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2015

[Darrell Pasloski]

This guarantees first nation participation in this process forever. There are seven members in YESAB. Three of them are on the executive committee; one is recommended by the first nations, one by Canada, one by Yukon. There are a total of four additional members, two of whom are first nations appointments. First nations appointments contribute—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I'll have to cut you off there. I'm sorry, Mr. Premier, but we do have to keep to a very tight timeline today in order to accommodate everyone we'd like to hear from.

[Darrell Pasloski]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

We'll move now to Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Premier and Minister, for your presentations this morning. It's nice to see so much interest in this bill from Yukoners and first nations. We're happy that we could be here today to hold these hearings.

First of all, you said that these recommendations evolved as a result of the final agreement of YESAA, a process that you called unique, which is what we've heard from many people across Yukon. We've also heard that it is a northern regulatory process that works.

That being the case, why would your government want to entertain changes, which are felt by first nations people to be eroding the current legislation, removing powers in a jurisdiction that they may have previously had? Why would you want to change something that is so unique and that is working in Yukon?

[Darrell Pasloski]

The first part of the answer to that question is that there was a mandated five-year review. That began in 2008 and concluded in 2012. Through that process there were 76 recommendations. There was unanimous support for 73 of the 76 recommendations, which is truly outstanding. There was no agreement that there had to be agreement on all of the recommendations, but that's a pretty outstanding number.

There was then the review request by Canada as part of their action plan to review northern regulatory regimes. I think what's important to what you're saying is that I disagree about the erosion that you say first nations believe could occur. There's a very important part of YESAA that is not in Bill S-6, because there are no amendments to that part of the act. I am talking about section 4 of YESAA, which clearly states:

In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a final agreement and this Act, the agreement prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.

I believe there is no infringement on all the rights, and that—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Well, let me ask you this. Of the 76 recommendations that are there, first nations and Yukoners, along with the Yukon government and the Government of Canada, support 72. There are four outstanding that are controversial. They feel that because they have a tri-governmental agreement, really the Yukon government and the Government of Canada cannot make these changes unilaterally without their support.

Your government in Yukon signed on to that land claims agreement. Do you agree with that provision? If so, are you prepared to say to the Government of Canada today that those four clauses that are controversial and that have not been sorted out to the satisfaction of all three parties must be postponed, delayed, or amended so that all three parties that originally signed this agreement can go forward in harmony with the changes? Are you prepared to do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

There are about 35 seconds left.

[Darrell Pasloski]

For the record, there were 76 recommendations that came out of the five-year review. You're referring to four recommendations that came after the five-year review, not the same ones that weren't agreed upon in the five-year review.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Yes.

[Darrell Pasloski]

As I've said, we support these amendments. We feel the Yukon government has been adequately consulted, and that our recommendations were in fact considered prior to the legislation's tabling. We believe that these amendments are good for all Yukoners.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So the answer is no.

[Darrell Pasloski]

I've also said I believe there is an opportunity for Yukon first nations and the Yukon government to now sit down and work on the ground on the implementation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I'll have to stop you there. Thank you very much.

Next on my list I have Mr. Strahl, but I understand that Mr. Strahl is ceding his time to Mr. Leef.

Mr. Leef, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Back in 2012 the Yukon government signed a historic resource revenue-sharing agreement with the Government of Canada. Since that point there's been joint investment in projects like the Centre for Northern Innovation in Mining, and additional support for land-based training, the caring for the land program, and additional educational and literacy types of programs to make sure that Yukoners have opportunities when there are jobs available in the territory.

As Minister Kent pointed out, there has been some depreciation in attraction for the investment climate in Yukon. He referenced the YMAB report.

I'm just wondering if you can expand a little bit on how this entire parcel of investment is part of the opportunities we're trying to generate for Yukoners, not just a legislative piece but a program-based piece, and what the governments of Yukon and Canada are doing to make sure Yukoners have those kinds of opportunities available to them.

[Darrell Pasloski]

I believe that the federal government and indeed this territorial government are looking at investments on a strategic level. We believe it's not the government's job to be the economy, but to, through strategic investments in infrastructure, whether it's hydro, roads, bridges, or telecommunications, investment in education, investment in training through CNIM, or the updating of regulatory and permitting opportunities, collectively put Yukon in a place that allows it to really be attractive for responsible investment.

Again, drawing back to the focus I have, we're looking for responsible investment to build an economy and to create jobs and opportunities for Yukoners.

[Scott Kent]

To follow up on what the premier mentioned, in the recent Fraser Institute report, Yukon was rated number one in the world for mineral potential. While we're still in the top 10 in a survey related to investment attractiveness, we have slipped in the past few years, indicating that there is more work to be done not only on the regulatory side but also just following up on what the premier mentioned, on training and infrastructure development and other aspects. YESAA is a key part of the regulatory and licensing framework here, and we feel that these amendments will help to make those improvements so that we can attract those investment dollars to our economy.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

One point of concern that first nations have raised has to do with the delegation of authority down to the territorial level. Again I want to reference the bilateral accord offer you're making here today. I'm wondering if you could touch on that piece and try to paint a better picture for the public who are here and listening today. How do you envision any delegation of authority that would move down from the federal government to the territorial government, working with our northern governance regime and with the relationship that's absolutely necessary between the Yukon government and Yukon first nations?

[Darrell Pasloski]

Let me just start by saying there is no delegation contemplated at this time either by the federal government or by the territorial government. I have been on the public record as well saying that if in fact that were to go forward, we would consult with first nations prior to delegation.

Delegation in itself would really allow for administrative efficiencies, but the authorities would be very limited. I've also mentioned this before: the meat in the sandwich is the regulations and the federal government cannot delegate the regulations. There are such things as activity thresholds. I think it's very important that we're clearly on the record as saying there is no delegation contemplated at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, Mr. Premier.

We will now move to Ms. Hughes. I believe you may be sharing your time with Mr. Bevington. I'm not sure who's going first.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

You talk about the relationship with the mineral industry, and I want to get back to this relationship, because it's really important.

In Canada right now the greatest impediment to development is generally the relationship that industry has with first nations. How do you see that the actions you've taken, which may end up with court action, as was the case in the Northwest Territories, over the so-called superboard, are going to give you the certainty to raise your profile on the international level, in terms of mineral development in Yukon, when you've gone through these types of relationship-killing exercises in the last year or two?

[Darrell Pasloski]

I would say that the relationship between industry and first nations in this territory is pretty strong. Certainly we point any industry or any investors who come to this territory in that direction right off the bat. We say that if they're interested in a specific area in the Yukon territory, the very first thing they need to do is sit down with the first nations in that area and begin to have a conversation with them. I think that's very important, and that is essential on a go-forward basis.

As I have said, I think there is an opportunity for first nations and for leadership to sit down now and to find a path forward regarding how we implement these amendments on the ground in Yukon. We've done it in the past, and I believe we can do it again.

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

I think one has to keep in mind that it's obvious there was no fair process on this piece. They laid out all their cards during the five-year review and you didn't. I think that is the problem. That is why we are where we are today.

If you would have provided the information on the amendments you wanted to see in the bill prior to tabling them with the government, I think we may not have been here today and the process probably would have been different.

I think we have to look at whether it was actually a fair process and whether you put all your cards on the table prior to the five-year review process being completed.

The Yukon government is the decision-making body for the majority of projects carried out in Yukon. The proposal to exempt projects from assessment for renewal or amendment is qualified with the additional requirement to test whether these projects have changed significantly according to the decision-making body. The bill gives no direction on how this will work. Do you not think these broad, sweeping provisions give too much discretion? How will proponents and first nations be assured that these decisions will be fair? Have you contemplated the policy requirements for all types of projects?

If you can't finish answering that question, I would ask that you table the answer. Thank you.

[Darrell Pasloski]

I'll start off by saying that the comment you started with was absolutely false. The Yukon government shared with first nations all of its recommendations and the comments it provided to the federal government beginning all the way back in 2012. That statement is completely inaccurate.

When it comes to renewals, to be consistent with the way other jurisdictions do things, I do not think that simply renewing or amending a licence should trigger a review. It's also very important to clarify that the decision-making body determines whether or not a project requires assessment. If it's on settlement land, the first nation would decide that.

This would be determined, quite simply, through reviewing the act and the regulations. That would determine whether or not another review was required. Otherwise, we have simple—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

I'll have to stop you there, unfortunately. Thank you.

Our last member is Mr. Strahl.