Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2015

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

Considering that Casino is actually the largest mining project in Yukon's history and that the adequacy review is important to make sure that the proponent has provided sufficient detail to make it possible to assess, I would like to ask concerning other current projects that are under review how, if new rules were in place, the adequacy review for any current project such as Casino would be affected.

[Wendy Randall]

My understanding is that, if a project has already been accepted, it would continue under the process it's currently in.

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

That's if it is being accepted, but if the project is being amended, would the assessment review process be amended as well? It's my understanding that under this project, if a project were amended at some point there wouldn't be an assessment or a need for a review of it. Is that not correct?

[Wendy Randall]

I'm not clear what you're asking me, actually.

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

If the scope of the project changes, would there be another review for the assessment? Would another one be—

[Wendy Randall]

It depends. Our assessment covers off the activities and effects of the project as submitted and assessed. Then regulators provide authorizations, licences, and permits based on the scope of that project and that assessment. If the project changed and there were different activities with potentially different effects that had not been assessed, as things now stand those activities might or might not under the regulations trigger a further or a new or a smaller assessment on those activities. It depends on what it is.

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

Do you agree that projects that at this point have taken the longest in assessment processes are those that didn't have enough information?

[Wendy Randall]

I think it's more complicated than that. There are thousands and thousands of pages of technical information required for complicated projects. Also, sometimes issues come up that Yukoners feel very strongly about. Some significant public concern, perhaps, is raised. There can be a number of reasons that timelines are extended.

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

In establishing beginning-to-end timelines, this could speed up through the assessment process, but this will result in rushed assessments that will not fully address potential environmental or socio-economic impacts. These are some of the concerns that are being raised.

What is your view? Do you agree that establishing beginning-to-end timelines may speed these projects through the assessment process and could result in rushed assessments that will not fully address potential environmental and socio-economic impacts?

[Wendy Randall]

I don't think we as a board have that option. The act tells us that we must do a comprehensive environmental and socio-economic assessment, and then it may tell us what the timelines are. We will need to find a way to make that work.

As I indicated before, this may mean that some assessments will look different from the way they look now. The process may have to change. We may have to contemplate the AIR or EIS processes that some other jurisdictions use—a sort of pre-process before the adequacy process.

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

Again, it won't be Yukon-made anymore?

[Wendy Randall]

I don't know what you mean by Yukon-made. We will need to find ways to make whatever we are dealt with—

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

YESAA was made-in-Yukon, made-by-Yukon, and made-for Yukon. Now we're having to readjust the whole process, right?

[Wendy Randall]

We may have to look at the process, particularly for larger, more complex projects.

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

That's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

All right.

Our final questioner will be Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

When you were mentioning YESAA section 5, I took a chance to quickly look. One portion that jumped out at me in the context of what I've been questioning about today is paragraph 5(2)(i), which says, “to ensure that the assessment process is conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner that avoids duplication”.

I don't know whether you have that text or are familiar with it. I think I quoted it fairly accurately.

When we look at something in the context of significant change, has the board or a designated office encountered a situation in which there clearly hasn't been a significant change, yet there had to be another assessment?

[Wendy Randall]

I don't know. I can't honestly answer. Perhaps, I don't know.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Smith, you seem to want to answer.

[Tim Smith]

I think this morning there was a comment that alluded to a change in policy or practice of YESAB with respect to how we bound projects temporally.

Certainly in the past it had been YESAB's practice to impose temporal boundaries on a project consistent with the longest permit cycle. It is conceivable that there were occasions when that may have resulted in very similar projects being assessed iteratively. This was an issue that arose during the five-year review.

Recently, YESAB has made changes in its practices to allow for a different approach to temporal scoping of projects, one delinked from permit cycles. It would be based on the information that a proponent has available that can provide support up to the life cycle of a project. We feel that this will address many of those concerns about iterative reviews of very similar projects.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Would you agree that this is a circumstance in which the legislation is putting in place, in a legislative context, what the board is already trying to deal with in an administrative or regulatory context?

That seems to me to be what you just said, that you recognized that there was an issue and that you're trying to find ways to make those changes yourselves.

[Wendy Randall]

That was one very specific issue with regard to the temporal scope of a certain type of project. My understanding is that in the suggested changes in Bill S-6, the scope of the change is not that narrow.

So yes, that's one example that would probably fit in with that change. As for other areas that would fit in with it, we don't know.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

If a project that does not have a significant change has to have another assessment due to renewing a permit, do you think that is in violation of paragraph 5(2)(i), which says that you want it to be done in a manner that avoids duplication?

[Wendy Randall]

I'm again uncomfortable with being asked for my opinion on these sorts of things. We would like to spend our time doing environmental and socio-economic assessments on projects that will yield value from the assessment. If there are projects in which it is not providing value, then it's not a good use of anyone's time.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

In the example I heard earlier, in which a mine went from—I forget what he said—1,500 tonnes a day to something significantly in excess of that, it makes a lot of sense to me to look at having an additional assessment. But when you're just looking at renewing a permit and nothing is really changing, to me it seems to violate paragraph 5(2)(i) to have another assessment that is duplicative.