Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and other members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you today.
MiningWatch Canada is national non-profit organization. Our mandate is to improve mining practices and policies both here in Canada and where Canadian mining companies operate internationally, which I'm sure you know is pretty much around the world.
My own background is in ecology and environmental science. I've been with MiningWatch since 2008 as the Canada Program coordinator. In that capacity I am involved in environmental assessments, policy development, and support to communities that are trying to understand proposed mining projects. Occasionally we support communities that are trying to enforce their right to say no to projects, but we also support communities that are trying to grapple with the implications of projects that are advancing.
Some of our current work in the north includes very active participation around Ontario's Ring of Fire, looking at environmental assessment processes for that major new development. We're working on the Kiggavik uranium environmental assessment and facilitating a new network of academics and NGO folks who are looking at the impacts of mining on women in the far north. We do information sharing and exchanges across the country and work on broad policy initiatives, such as the Canadian environmental assessment review that is taking place shortly.
Mining is certainly having a profound impact in the north. While a large share of mineral investment is still going to southern Canada, the relative impact of mining in the north is much greater, given the overall smaller economies and smaller population in the north.
Most communities we work with, by and large, though not exclusively—we do recognize the importance of communities' right to say no—are looking at mining with optimism and welcoming arms for the economic opportunities it can advance. However, no one wants mining to be forced on them or, as Chief Gagnon said—who I was just speaking with—to be shoved down their throats. So it's important that we have processes in place to engage communities, to ensure adequate review of proposed projects, and to effectively have participation in the review of projects.
Mining in the north has a variety of unique social circumstances: a small population, and the fact that we're not talking about the development of new mining towns but more and more fly-in camps. The training deficit in the north is a major challenge to be overcome. There are a variety of social challenges, which although not unique to the north are perhaps more extreme in the north: housing crises, suicide, and substance abuse. Also we have indigenous cultures that are still strong. In some places they're being revived and adapted to the modern age, and this includes a strong reliance on wildlife resources for sustenance and maintenance of culture.
We have minimal infrastructure in many places, and we have unique and sensitive environments, especially with the changing climate. We already know that the north is suffering from climate change more than any other regions of Canada, and issues such as permafrost melting and disappearance of sea ice are major challenges to grapple with. We also have relatively new government institutions that are trying to find their way in this context.
One of our main messages to this committee in your study is the hope that we will pursue a strong and rigorous environmental and socio-economic review process for extractive projects. In our case, we're particularly interested in mining.
The basic structures are there: we have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. None of these is perfect. They can all use some fine tuning, and they all need more resources to do their jobs effectively.
We would encourage the committee to consult the recent—from spring of this year—studies by the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board and the Government of the Northwest Territories on potential improvements. In those documents they clearly identify the gaps that need to be filled to complete those systems.
We're very concerned about the cuts to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, given the increased workload that agency is experiencing.
I wonder about the addition of bureaucracies to the review process. I know an audit is being done of the major projects management office and I will be very curious to see what that audit tells us. For somebody from the outside, the addition of a layer of bureaucracy is a bit confusing to understand. How does that lead to greater efficiencies? It means I have to check two websites to find out where documents are posted. That's a relatively minor inconvenience, but certainly in terms of costs and efficiencies I wonder where that leads us.
The federal government has made important commitments to establishing regional monitoring networks that can contribute to understanding broad regional issues that can then facilitate individual project applications and environmental assessments. These commitments have not yet been fully met.
In the south we've had review panels, which have given opportunities for communities to have their voice heard in the development of projects. Unfortunately, we have seen a trend recently toward removal of those processes, or a reduction in the number of those processes.
I think there's a cautionary tale here regarding Ontario's Ring of Fire. This is a potential mineral development that is unprecedented in recent decades. People have likened it to the scale of Sudbury: massive mineral potential in an area that currently has very little infrastructure.
Many first nations would be affected by proposed developments in the region, part of the Matawa as well as the Mushkegowuk first nations. These nations are interested in development. They see opportunities here, but they want to proceed in a way that respects their culture and ensures the protection of their environment to the greatest degree possible. After consideration, they have developed positions that suggest a review panel would be the best way to move forward. They asked the government to engage with them to negotiate a process to review the projects and they were turned down flat. Instead the government suggested a comprehensive study would suit their needs, or the needs of the companies or the needs of government. I'm not sure whose needs they thought would best be suited to that process. Certainly it wasn't the first nations' perspective on what was needed.
So we've gone from having a climate of opportunity and potential development to one of conflict, potential legal suits, and something that will inevitably draw out the process in a very unproductive way.
There are a few lessons to be learned from operating mines. With respect to impact benefit agreements, there are a lot of differing experiences, some positive and some negative. We can look to the mines of northern Saskatchewan that have admirable levels of employment of indigenous people, but it's taken a lot of effort; it doesn't just happen.
Employment at the Meadowbank Mine in Nunavut has had a high turnover rate, which is of concern. And access to jobs is a real issue, as well as a ceiling for people because they don't necessarily have the training and background to obtain higher-level positions.
Another area we're quite concerned about is the closure of mines in the north in particular. Thinking about mine closure at the beginning of the process has become institutionalized from the industry perspective, but we still don't know who and how we're going to take care of many of these sites for the hundreds of years they will need to be looked after. The Raglan Mine in Nunavik was not predicted to be a major concern post-closure, but now that the mine is operating, we know it will likely require water treatment long into the future.
A number of research gaps need to be addressed in terms of technical issues like impacts of climate change on mine infrastructure, the social issues around community benefits and well-being related to mining, and ecological issues in terms of wildlife population baseline studies.
There are a tremendous number of challenges to face as mining moves forward in the north. There are opportunities here. We only have a chance to do it right once, and I hope the government pursues a path of rigorous review and engages the populations that will be most affected by these projects.
Thank you very much.