Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

We'll move to Mr. Leef next.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, witnesses.

Ms. Armstrong, my question will be for you. You urge that the bill be set aside and that the government come back to the table with Yukon first nations to talk about their concerns. I think they made their concerns pretty clear this morning. Their position was that the four clauses be entirely removed. From that point of view, I'm not entirely sure there's a lot of room to talk about those four pieces. It seems to me they'll be satisfied if those four pieces are completely removed.

Also, when I look at the Yukon Minerals Advisory Board report, they rendered a fairly scathing assessment in 2013. They said they've chosen “to focus on...the key issue negatively impacting industry; the deterioration in the efficiency and reliability of the assessment and licensing of mining projects in the territory.”

They've highlighted that the “proponents' experience securing approvals has worsened dramatically”, and “[G]radual deterioration in the interpretation and administration of existing laws and regulations by government agencies [is creating] uncertainty...affecting capital investment”. They also talk about the deterioration of the investment climate in the Yukon.

One of the signatories to that was Eira Thomas, who is the CEO of Kaminak.

I guess I'm wondering, in light of the fact that Yukon first nations' position is pretty clear on the timeline assessment piece, whether it would be your position now that we just remove the timeline assessment piece entirely, and that would allow us to move on.

[Allison Rippin Armstrong]

Our position is that if the government isn't going to come back to the table to address the four contentious amendments with the first nations, they should be removed from the bill.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I know you've made your position on that question clear, Mr. Thrall, so I won't repeat that question.

Mr. Hartland, with respect to the mining industry, you indicated that it represents over 400 employers in this territory. Would those include Yukon first nation mining companies as well?

[Samson Hartland]

That's correct. Our membership is representative of a wide cross-section of individuals, everyone from a prospector doing work in the creek all the way up to workers in fully producing mines as well as levels of government and first nation development corporations in between.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Thrall, you spoke about engagement at the community level not just for first nations but for all Yukoners. I'm wondering if you have any anecdotal experience generally speaking about the IBAs that have been initiated in the territory, which benefit communities broadly and our territory on a wide basis.

[Brad A. Thrall]

I certainly would, but with your indulgence, I'd like to pass that to Mr. Light because of his operating experience.

[Ron Light, Vice President, Capstone Mining Corp., Yukon Chamber of Mines]

This is Ron Light. Could you repeat your question, please, Mr. Leef?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I'm wondering if you could highlight anecdotally, without getting into specifics, at least some of the IBAs that benefit Yukon communities and indeed the entire Yukon, and give us your sense of the cooperative and direct working relationship that exists outside of government, just between Yukon mines and the communities in which they work.

[Ron Light]

I think as the only operating mine in the Yukon right now, last year we spent $45 million in the Yukon alone. We have what I would consider a well-established working relationship with the first nations whose land we work on. We do get into the community for community updates. We support employment and training. We also step outside of that. In 2012 we opened an office in Whitehorse so we could get to the broader Yukon community.

The downside as I see it is that permitting timelines continue to grow. To piggyback on what Mr. Thrall said earlier, our latest application took 150 days from project submission to the declared adequacy. It took another 210 days to have a decision document. That was the YESAA part alone, which is paramount to the work of other regulatory bodies and which resulted in a local contractor in Yukon reducing its manpower at our Minto Mine from 101 employees in 2013 to 53 in 2014 and, further, to 37 as of this date.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

In respect of that point, with the global climate in terms of investment, the portion highlighted by YMAB, and your own testimony today, if absolutely shelving the timeline piece were on the table for this committee, what impact would that have on employment and the economy in the territory, in your estimation?

[Ron Light]

I think as long as we can shorten timelines, the employment will continue to grow since mines will continue to operate. Right now we're spending money on the Yukon College foundation to improve the ability to supply homegrown tradespeople and miners, but we have to have a place for those tradespeople and miners to work. Extended timelines are going to push them out of the territory, and we need to keep them here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

We'll move to Ms. Jones for the next six minutes.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, all, for your presentations today. I must say we've had very interesting dialogue with all the presenters.

Ms. Armstrong, I come from a riding that is of course very heavily industrialized. There's a lot of mining activity and a lot of first nations and Inuit land claims and treaty agreements. I know that respectful relationships drive the economy, protect the environment, and make all people proud of where we come from, so I'm happy to hear your support today for first nations people, because it's on their land that you work, and I think respect is very important.

On the timeline piece, the mining association is saying that timelines have affected your companies. I won't argue with that. I'm sure there are all kinds of processes that get dragged out for longer than we would like sometimes. If this bill is not fixed and all three governments that are signatories to it cannot come to consensus, we could very well see things go to the courts. How is that going to affect your mining operations and jobs in this area?

[Samson Hartland]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Jones.

I think there are probably some good examples to use here, such as the Brewery Creek YESAB submission from a number of years back. This was a producing mine from 1996 to 2002, and it closed due to low gold prices. When they tried to bring it back online in 2009, they acquired all the licences and permits and undertook extensive exploration.

Now, as part of that, they did partner up and have an agreement in place—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Hartland, I have to interrupt you. I'm sorry.

You're telling us today that because of the YESAA process and the timelines associated with that, minor changes within your company meant having to go through extensive processes of assessment. You say those delayed your operations and caused job losses and layoffs for Yukoners.

If the Government of Canada does not resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all governments involved, the first nations have already said they will seek litigation, and they will go to the courts. How is that going to affect mining operations in this area? That's what I want to know.

[Ron Light]

That's going to draw things out even longer. It's going to result in more layoffs, more mine closures, and the end of mining in Yukon.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Exactly.

My question today is why the Chamber of Mines would not be supporting the first nations governments in trying to resolve this issue before it gets passed through the House of Commons. I'm surprised that you would take the view you do on how it's going to impact the economy, the companies, the jobs, and the mining industry but not be encouraging the Government of Canada to get to the table with first nations and resolve this issue.

[Samson Hartland]

With all due respect, Ms. Jones, that was a part of our presentation. We did speak to the importance of intergovernmental relations. We spoke to the importance of respectful relations among all levels of government, but at the same time, just to be clear, the Chamber of Mines is here to speak on the merits of the bill that are specific to operating in Yukon's climate.

You've gotten a bit of a taste of the technical and industry perspectives on experiences with YESAB. When we talk about intergovernmental relations, we are simply a mining organization. We understand mining, and that's what we're here to present to you today.

As for intergovernmental relations, you guys are the experts. That's why there are levels of government that have spoken to this today. We just want to be able to provide input that provides benefits to all Yukoners.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I respect that, but we have a situation here. I think the bill can be amended with the cooperation of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Yukon and first nations governments so that it will work for everyone. I really feel that if this cannot be resolved, it's Yukoners who are going to lose out. They're really going to lose out. What do you do in a situation when you have legislation being forced on you?

You are a mining association representing mining companies, one of which, as we heard here today, would prefer to see all groups back at the table and have this resolved, because they know what it's going to mean for their investments and for the timeframes around their mining operations. I would have thought it would be the same case for all other mining operations or business development projects in this area. Do you see a way of resolving this issue among the parties involved and coming to language that everyone can agree upon before the bill passes through the House of Commons?

[Samson Hartland]

I refer back to our opening comments with respect to the fact that we have spoken to how the parties do need to work in respectful ways towards arriving at solutions that provide socio-economic opportunities for Yukoners.

It's certainly not our place to say how doing that should be gone about. We're speaking to the merits of the bill as presented, and we're speaking to the importance of the timelines and the reassessments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Mr. Strahl, you're next.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again I want to focus on this annual report of the Yukon Minerals Advisory Board from 2013. This question will go to Ms. Rippin Armstrong.

Page 5 of the document says:

YMAB puts forth the following recommendations to [Yukon government] as they are achievable and can result in immediate positive impacts in the next three to six months.

One of them is on “Adequacy Review Timelines for YESAA and the Water Board” and states:

Short timelines for adequacy reviews must be set for YESAA and for the Yukon Water Board.

Under “YESAA Re-assessment Process Clarity”, the report states:

The process to determine whether a YESAA re-assessment is required when an authorization is renewed or amended needs to be clarified. A more transparent decision-making process is also needed, particularly with respect to how and when these determinations are made by Decision Bodies.

Again, as Mr. Leef said, the report talked about “the deterioration in the efficiency and reliability of the assessment and licensing of the mining projects in the territory” and the “decline” in Yukon in terms of the jurisdiction's ranking as a desirable place to do mining.

Everything I read there was signed off on by Eira Thomas, Kaminak Gold Corp. She wanted the Yukon government to put in adequacy review timelines and YESAA reassessment process clarity in three to six months. Certainly, that would not allow for the level of consultation that we have provided for the last 18 months.

Why did Ms. Thomas and Kaminak want these changes so badly in 2013 and why, now that they are before you in terms of legislation, is there this sudden “where did this come from”? I can tell you that it came from people like those at Kaminak who asked for it. Why the flip-flop on the part of Kaminak? Why are they now saying that what they wanted just two years ago is outrageous at this point?

[Allison Rippin Armstrong]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

There is no flip-flop. Kaminak has not made any flip-flops. Eira Thomas was only one signatory to that document. Eira Thomas is the president and CEO of Kaminak. Kaminak, as one of the companies working in the Yukon, absolutely participated in recommendations for improvements.

It was the job of the Yukon government and the job of the federal government to then take those recommendations into consideration and consult with the first nations. That was not—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Okay. Let's talk about that, then. If now it's the mining companies like Kaminak that have asked for adequacy review, significant change in policy direction, etc., if that's what industry has asked for, how do you think...? I see no way forward, after the discussion today, where they're consulting further. The positions are either “remove it from the bill” or...that's all there is.

Do you envision a consultation process that would allow this bill to get buy-in with the four amendments? Or are you saying to remove the four amendments because if we consulted from now throughout the next mandate of the next government, you don't see a way that these four provisions would be accepted or could be tweaked in any way? There's been a discussion to remove them entirely.

How do we go forward from those two really incompatible positions other than to just strip them out of the bill?