Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The motion to adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

Now we go back to your question.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Do I still have time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Yes.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'm very disappointed.... Given your very powerful testimony today, I think it is incumbent upon the government, in collaboration, to correct the process errors of the past, and it's imperative, in my opinion, that the replacement language be dealt with. I would like your comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

In four seconds.

[Jonas Smith]

I imagine there are a number of approaches—legislative, regulatory, or policy—but we would like to see that progress made before the bill is passed so we know what we're getting into before the roof is ripped off the house.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Questioning moves to MP Romeo Saganash.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning.

I come from a region where there has been an environmental assessment and review process in place for almost 45 years now. I definitely see the merit of having a rigorous environmental assessment and review process in place for the benefit of all, not just for indigenous nations, but also for industry.

I agree with the comment that you are at the forefront of reconciliation. I remember the first agreement we signed with a mining company in my area, in 1994. It was based on very solid principles that continue to exist today in terms of our relationship with mining companies in the region.

I insisted on having your testimony. At one of our meetings not too long ago I insisted on hearing your perspective or, as you call it, the real world perspective. For context on our discussion here, I thought it was important to hear your concerns and suggestions to that effect.

I understand the testimony. I understand the need for a deferral in this case. I think the reason that you're bringing it to the table this morning is valid. I think it's important for all of us to be clear on what we're dealing with.

Mr. Smith, one of the things you suggested in your testimony is that we strike a committee composed of the different stakeholders, which is a good suggestion. Do you differentiate between the stakeholders? On one side, of course, you have an interest in all of this, but on the other side, there are people in other Yukon first nations who have constitutional rights in this discussion. Do you make a distinction between parties in that sense?

[Jonas Smith]

Absolutely. Thank you for the question.

As many of you may know, Yukon has approximately half of the total modern-day self-governing and final agreements for first nations in the entire country. We have 11 of our 14 first nations, and I think, at the last count, there was 24 or 25 modern-day treaties across the country. We are very well versed in the role and importance of government-to-government negotiations, so we always support that.

The challenge comes when those discussions become advanced and negotiators or lawyers are discussing issues without having any technical or real world experience, as you put it, in the matter they're dealing with. At that stage in the discussion, I think it's very important to have that technical perspective.

In this case, I don't think we're asking for anything untoward. All the parties have already agreed to sitting down and coming up with ways to address these outstanding issues. What we're putting forward today is to have that conversation before the legislation passes, because it hasn't happened yet.

I don't think we're asking for anything different. We have agreement from Yukon first nations, from Canada, from the Government of Yukon, and from industry. There is a signed joint letter. There is a memorandum of understanding. We're just trying to get the ball rolling.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I guess you read or watched the debates in the House of Commons, and I've participated in the debate.

You talked about some misrepresentations regarding this bill. Can you give us a couple of examples to that effect?

[Jonas Smith]

Yes.

As I mentioned earlier, in my mind there was a misrepresentation when the argument was put forward that the reassessment provision was no longer necessary because the assessment board had come up with an internal process, which they refer to as temporal scoping. While that will be helpful for new proponents, that does not address the issue which the exemption from reassessment is meant to address. The issue of the Chamber of Mines' unconditional support was the other main misrepresentation in my mind. As we've outlined today, there were conditions.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Given your recommendation to strike a committee to work out the details that you've talked about, what kind of time frame are you considering?

[Jonas Smith]

Given the fact that we're, whatever it is, four months later than we thought we'd be, I would say that time was about four months ago, so I'd like to see it start right away. I think that Canada is in the position to initiate those discussions. Quite frankly, I think that there's been this expectation for industry to carry that burden to have those discussions in isolation with first nations. I think there's a leadership role for the Government of Canada to play here to ensure those discussions happen and that they happen in a timely manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The questioning moves to MP Anandasangaree, who I understand is splitting his time with MP Bossio.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Actually, Mike, you can start if you want.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Sure.

I think that the parties that negotiated agreements around this bill, as has been mentioned many times, have been desperate to see this move ahead as quickly as possible. I think any further delays wouldn't serve the interests of anyone involved in this process. Is there reason to believe that once Bill C-17 is passed, a lot of the stuff you're looking to have done can still be negotiated at that time? There's no reason to delay the process any longer than it has already been delayed. If we're going to truly move on a path towards reconciliation, the time needs to be taken in order to get it right with indigenous communities and all stakeholders, especially around some of the areas that you're addressing around timelines and reassessments. I just fail to see why we'd put the kibosh on Bill C-17 and start all over, so that we can put these things in, rather than pass Bill C-17 and move forward in the process, along with true reconciliation.

[Jonas Smith]

To be clear, sir, we're not proposing kiboshing Bill C-17. Our concern is partially informed by the four-month delay we've experienced already and that there has been no progress to date. Our concern is that, if Bill C-17 becomes law tomorrow, and these very valuable, demonstrably effective provisions are rescinded, we have no guarantees of how long it will take to come up with a solution. We are absolutely willing to talk about temporary solutions or permanent solutions. As I mentioned earlier, it could be legislative, regulatory, or policy, but the fact remains that there has been no progress to date and that is our concern.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The fact remains that once again, you're looking to delay it even further. I think we need to put forward the legislation, get this done, and then move on to the next stage on this path of reconciliation.

[Jonas Smith]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, sir.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's all right. It's your prerogative.

As far as reassessments are concerned—Will and I actually sit on the environment committee as well and we just went through the process of evaluating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—one of the key issues around that was the cumulative impact of projects, or chemicals, or whatever the case might be, both to human health and the environment. In the reassessment process, I think that the cumulative impact is a key factor. You might say that you're just going to extend this another 500 metres, but we don't know what that cumulative impact is going to be following the work that you've already done on that project.

Do you not agree that, when you're doing an extension and expansion of a project, reassessment needs to occur?

[Jonas Smith]

One of the changes contained in Bill S-6 that was taken into consideration was cumulative impacts, so that is one of the amendments that is staying in the bill, even after Bill C-17 passes. Therefore, cumulative effects are being considered under our legislation now.

I just want to clarify one of my previous statements.

Again, we're not trying to further delay this bill. There is a process, which is beyond any of our understanding, regarding how bills make their way through the houses of Parliament, but can we not be having these discussions concurrently? Can we not strike this committee? Can we not be working on this replacement solution, whether it is regulatory, policy, or legislative, while this bill makes its way through Parliament?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Once again, I think this is a process toward a collaboration. You yourself said you're working on an MOU with the first nations. You're working on reconciliation. That's a part of the whole process. I think once Bill C-17 is passed, that's not the end of this process. That encapsulates this, a snapshot in a period of time that all the parties agree needs to move forward.

Bills and legislation evolve on an ongoing basis, and once again, this is a step in that evolution. I think what's really important here is the collaboration, because it's only through the collaboration toward reconciliation...not just for reconciliation, but to also give certainty to corporations when they are working in this environment. Now that we have that reconciliation process, now that we have first nations involved in accepting the path forward, that's only going to add further certainty to corporations operating in those areas.

Mr. Burke, would you like to comment on that?

[Mike Burke]

Certainly this is a step backwards. Certainty is lessened, as you've heard in our statements and our testimony, due to the timelines imposed with Bill C-17.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

If you had some certainty, we wouldn't be in the position we're in now. You didn't have the certainty of working with first nations communities in the Yukon, and that's what caused a lot of the backlash toward the previous legislation.

You had short-term certainty but you certainly didn't have long-term certainty.

[Mike Burke]

Again respectfully, we might not agree on that point.