Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 21st, 2011

[Dr. Richard Schryer]

I'll simply add that there is the aspect of duplication that we have seen on a number of occasions.

On the diamond mines that have gone in ahead of us, the bar has continuously gone up because those large companies were able to put a significant amount of resources into environmental issues. Even though the issues are the same, if you look at the amount of resources that a junior mining company has to address a certain environmental issue, it's not the same as those of a large company. Even though the level of effort required may be lower, the expectation now is higher. So we're facing an escalation in requirements that sometimes aren't necessary to have our project approved. There needs to be a re-examination of the level of effort required, regardless of the project.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We're seeing an escalation of that in the oil and gas industry in the south as well. People have decided they won't go into a particular area because of requirements that are excessive, in my mind.

Mr. Bubar, you said you had been inspected 25 times just on your drilling. Was that done in a fair and reasonable way? Were people just keeping a good eye on what you were doing, or do you think there was some bias there and some attempt to try to interfere with what you were doing?

[Donald Bubar]

We didn't find any bias in that process whatsoever. The land-use regulations are fairly strict. There are a lot of things you have to comply with under different permits. It's well understood that you're going to be inspected from time to time to make sure you're in compliance.

We've taken the approach right from the start that the rules are the rules and we're going to follow them. The land-use inspector has recognized our good intentions there, and we've never had any real issues with that process.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

That's not an area where you're suggesting changes.

[Donald Bubar]

No.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Ms. Jones, we've often used the line here that a job is the best social program there is. As an impact on government, in your presentation you show a reduction in social assistance payments. I wonder if there is anything you'd like to say about that. We have a major number of people coming off social assistance, and a few of them going back on it. Do you want to talk about the impact of that on communities? Is it really changing communities? You talked about a couple of individuals, but tell me about the impact your job-training programs are having on communities.

[Hilary Jones]

Thank you. I would love to talk about that.

We did look at long-term impact, and there was an impact on government. We did a test on the trainees we had during our first ASEP, and we were able to match 119 of them. As of December 2007, 11% of the original group were receiving income assistance, whereas in the first group we looked at, 70% were on income assistance.

When we finished the study, 3% were on wage subsidy and 9% were on student financial assistance. If they were on wage subsidy that meant they were in an apprenticeship program. If they were on SFA, they were in post-secondary education. So there was a significant impact from the training.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

How is it changing people's expectations of jobs? Do the younger people have different expectations when they are thinking about working in the north? Are they preparing themselves ahead of time better than you've seen in the past, or have you seen that kind of impact yet?

[Hilary Jones]

We've seen the average age of our trainees drop, and their qualifications coming from high school are higher.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay, so they see some future--

[Hilary Jones]

There is a future in mining.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Your time is up.

Mr. Trost has up to five minutes, please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't too surprised today by some of the general comments about regulatory problems. I worked as a junior geophysicist in the north, and I was quite familiar with senior geologists spending the majority of their time on paperwork instead of project work.

I did appreciate it, Mr. Kearney, when you noted a couple of pieces of legislation that you'd like to see move forward. We've heard about the generalized problem. I'm now interested in some of the specifics.

Are there specific processes, boards, or items that you think could be eliminated to make it more like the wonderfully quick people from Saskatchewan? We're all fairly quick down there. Are there any specifics you have to add to some of your earlier ones?

[John F. Kearney]

Both the Chamber of Mines and the Mining Association of Canada have issued detailed recommendations as to how the legislation process could be improved.

I'm afraid there is a very long list one could come out with. There are certainly significant uncertainties surrounding the whole issue of aboriginal consultation. Who is responsible for consultation? Who is supposed to do it, and at what level? Frankly, the courts have not helped with the various decisions, which has created more uncertainty.

There seems to be reluctance on the part of the government in trying to see how some form of universal consultation process could be put in place. That needs to be legislated.

Beyond that, I could say that one should eliminate the right of appeal from a review board. That might sound terribly contradictory, because a right of appeal to the courts is always a safeguard. On the other hand, the fact that it's there tends to have it used unnecessarily.

There are timelines that need to be imposed all across the board. As I said earlier, the role of the federal government departments inputting into the review process needs a significant streamlining. It's questionable as to whether it's even needed. It certainly should be pulled way back.

Timelines are very, very important. That needs to be legislated. There are also lots of other changes that can be put in. Thresholds for small projects is perhaps the most important, for example, with an exploration project that only needs a drill hole or a couple of drill holes.

The reason that junior exploration has stopped in the Northwest Territories is that a prospector can no longer stake a claim and drill a hole because he has to go through this elaborate process. Even a small junior exploration company that only wants to drill two holes, or whatever it wants to drill, is forced into a very elaborate two-year to three-year process, which is probably not funded by flow-through shares that have to be spent within 18 months.

It's a chain that just isn't working. Thresholds definitely need to be changed, timelines need to be imposed, and government involvement in the review process needs to be reduced.

People talk about capacity and giving them more money so they can study more, but I'm not in favour of that. I'm in favour of less money so they can do less work.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Is there anything else from the other gentlemen?

[Donald Bubar]

Yes, I have something. I would not be in favour of government legislating on the consultation process. I believe that will ultimately resolve itself.

The way this industry will evolve is that aboriginal people will become more involved in the industry. They will become greater participants. Ultimately they will be the mining industry, so they will be consulting with themselves if this picture unfolds the way it should. Ultimately they are the dominant human resource in the north. If Hilary's programs are successful in creating the skills in those people, they will become the miners and developers of the future. The whole consultation issue will start to fall away because aboriginal people are running the industry.

Another hat I wear is that I chair the aboriginal affairs committee for the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. The main mission we have there is to encourage greater participation by aboriginal peoples in the industry, as a solution to that issue.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I have about 40 seconds. Is there anything quickly?

If not, my last question is what would you recommend to try to move timelines to being much more precise? As some of the witnesses said earlier, Saskatchewan goes through the same processes, but at a much quicker pace.

[Dr. Richard Schryer]

I would say that a necessary step would be adherence to the timelines. Far too often timelines are extended for a variety of reasons and processes, such as Mr. Bubar said. The scoping sessions and the information request sessions all get prolonged and prolonged for one reason or another. There's no real will on the board's side to actually adhere to the timelines and say, “We're doing this in 60 days. That's the time you have and we're going to get it done in that timeframe.” That just doesn't happen. It gets prolonged and prolonged, for whatever reason. A good first step would be to adhere to timelines and make everybody respect them, whether they be government regulators or first nations groups.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Very briefly.

[Robin Goad]

I would add one last comment. The minister himself is a part of the problem, with the length of time it takes for the minister to sign an environmental assessment certificate. Generally speaking, we find the minster almost goes through a review process all over again. It's an average of 348 days that it's taking for the minister to sign. He basically has a recommendation from the environmental assessment review board, so he should be following that and signing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Monsieur Lapointe, for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen. I learned a good deal.

Most of my questions will be for the people of Fortune Minerals Limited. I’m pleased to be meeting people speaking on behalf of a Canadian company investing in mines in Canada.

[Robin Goad]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but how do I get the translation channel?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's the bottom button and the top one is volume.

Monsieur Lapointe, go ahead please.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

As I say, I’m pleased to be meeting people speaking on behalf of a Canadian company investing in mines in Canada. It’s a matter of considerable importance to our party.

You spoke of a South Korean partner. What is their investment share compared to yours? Is it 50-50? 30-70? How does it work?