Evidence of meeting #44 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was north.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you for that.
On the Fisheries Act, is that what the NWT has provided as something you could provide to the committee as well, the changes to the Fisheries Act?
9:55 a.m.
Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories
We have written to the minister just to seek clarification. When we first heard about the changes, issues were raised by officials, by our own experts, so the Fisheries Act combined with the streamlining and efficiencies. We're all in favour of being efficient and being timely. We just want to be reassured that thoroughness is not going to be sacrificed and that we can in fact do the job that our constituents expect of us.
9:55 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Thank you.
I think the one thing that none of us want to see across Canada is legacy mines. We already have many of them that spot the north and all of Canada. We pay a lot for these. Giant Mine is a really good example right now, which is costing the federal government millions of dollars to manage 237,000 tonnes of arsenic that's tied up because of irresponsible mining practices and not proper technological solutions to mining that's going on. We don't want that. Let's put that out there.
The reason we don't have that in modern mining is because of the power of the well-asked question. The well-asked question in environmental assessment comes from scientists, from NRCAN, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, from Environment Canada, from all of the excellent scientists who are hired by and working in the federal government who ask the developer the well-asked question. When they pose that question to them, the developer then goes and looks at what they're proposing and performs the analysis they need to do and the technical work they need to do in order to prove to the federal government that they are not going to pose a risk to the environment and that they will take care of and put enough money aside to take care of any concerns or any environmental impacts that are going to be there.
So yes, we're very worried about what's going to happen with environmental assessment being gutted, because those people who ask the well-asked question will no longer be in the room. They won't be able to say what's going to happen with water, water quality. They won't be able to ask about technologies.
I just sat through excellent technical hearings in Yellowknife for three days. And yes, that was a period of time, but without that time together, the developer would not have been pushed forward to make big changes to their process so that they could protect water quality, be protective of caribou, and be protective of people of the north. Those technical sessions are absolutely fundamental to pushing good ideas forward and rejecting ideas that are not going to be protective.
I believe very strongly as an academic and as a person who works in the trenches and communities that environmental assessment is absolutely critical to good projects moving forward. That's what we want to see. We want to see good projects move forward. We want to see bad projects changed or rejected.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes.
I just wanted to come back to the issue you raised around sub-standard housing in the north. This has been a repeated theme: that infrastructure is not being invested in, housing is not being invested in by the federal government, even though the federal government is profiting from the resources being taken out of these communities.
How important is it that the federal government invest in housing across the north?
9:55 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I think housing is absolutely fundamental. And as the minister suggested, transportation is important, because in one of the aboriginal communities I work with, putting $800,000 into a winter road lowered the cost of living for citizens by 30% this year. There are really big impacts from investing well in winter roads, and that's a federal and a territorial responsibility.
But housing is also a responsibility. If people cannot be in a secure house, they can't get off to work. I know many families who are living in houses where, because of the effects and the legacy of colonization, there are addiction issues and social trauma. They can't leave their home for fear of what will happen to their children.
They can't leave their home because they don't have another home to go to. There is no housing. The housing they're in is inadequate. You go into a house, you see grandkids, kids, aunts, uncles, lots of people housed in a place. How could you, as a responsible adult and a parent, leave your child in that situation when you have no other choice? They outmigrate if they can or they choose not to work, and that's the unfortunate position they're in when housing is inadequate and substandard, which it is in northern regions, as you've identified.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
We go now to Mr. Trost for up to five minutes.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I very much appreciated the testimony, but sometimes it gets to be a little abstract. I'm going to ask about personal experiences and items learned. I'm going to start with Mr. Taptuna and go from there.
You worked over the years in the mineral resource industry. I'm looking through your bio here. You were part of oil and gas, and you've seen the development in your territory: the Meadowbank project. Based on your personal experiences and observations, what do you think has been done right? What do you think has been done wrong? If you were going to give some very quick summations of lessons learned, you're looking at Baker Lake, you're looking at the development of the mine, what has been done right when it comes to human resources, working with jobs and people and developing Baker, and what's been done wrong?
I'd like some really basic recommendations based on your personal experiences from someone who's lived in the north and seen the development of the town, talking and working with the local MLA, people, etc.
10 a.m.
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut
Thank you very much. It's an excellent question.
You're absolutely right. I spent 13 years in oil well drilling in the Beaufort Sea, ten of those offshore. I spent seven years at the Lupin gold mine, both underground and on the surface.
A lot of things were done right at the Meadowbank site. There was a lot of training. For the community of Baker Lake, where there are very few economic opportunities, employment, wage employment, and what not, it tremendously assisted a lot of families who are from Baker Lake.
As you know, economic activity is one of the fundamental things that gives wellness in the community for a family. We all understand that.
Housing situations get to a desperate point in Nunavut. A little over 60% of our young people go to school hungry. Without any economic activity, it's very difficult to get out of that rut. As economic development and transportation minister, I see some of these economic developments encouraging our younger people in the smaller communities to stay in school. In the past, there was very little encouragement for some of these young folks to stay in school because nothing was happening at the end of the line.
With more economic activity, it's encouraging to see some of these kids talking about more activity out there, and some of my colleagues indicated that to live out on the land and become a socially responsible family person, you have to be employed. There are no two ways about it. When you want to talk about country food harvesting, you can't go get it unless you're employed.
Equipment costs money: snow machines, ATVs, boats, outboards. Without that, you're going nowhere. Families are starting to understand that. So as economic development minister, I am trying to promote more economic activity, which provides opportunities for families to get out of these ruts.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
So the best thing they did in Baker Lake was what? And if they could do it again, they would do what differently?
10 a.m.
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut
I think there should be a little more emphasis on basic life skills training. That's one of the things we enthusiastically try to promote. When I talk about basic life skills training, I mean how to manage your family life, your bank account, and other various things that keep a family moving forward without having to fall back on income support and other various things that take self-esteem away from these young families.
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut
I'd have to say training. After they were trained, 265 Baker Lake folks went to work there. At any given time there are about 400 Inuit workers at the site indirectly, some through contracting, others through other companies that contract to the mine. So what was a “has-been“ community of Baker Lake has become one of the more economically better off communities. You see that in the wellness of the family members.
Of course there are some additional social ills that happen with that, but there is an opportunity to get out of the rut, and without that nobody's going anywhere.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Trost.
We go now to Mr. Nicholls for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for making themselves available today.
Ms. MacDonald, looking at your biography, I see you are somewhat of an expert on effective public consultation in Canada's north and on the roles of companies, governments, and communities. You are also an expert on the development of resources and on how to harness all those actors to best benefit people in the north.
Do you believe that the current practices of public consultation are sufficient and respond to the needs and the concerns of aboriginals in northern communities?
10:05 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Thank you for that question.
I don't have a legal background in this area. I've been a party to and a part of consultation efforts over the years. In terms of environmental assessments and layers of regulations, there is an environmental review followed by water licensing and permitting. The process sometimes becomes overly technical for a public consultation, but with the aid of technical expertise combined with public and traditional knowledge and indigenous science, somewhere within a period of six months to two years people are able to understand and grasp and move forward on a proposed development.
So consultation happens during that period, and when an aboriginal government steps up and really takes that responsibility on themselves as well, we see really good efforts at consultation and really excellent efforts by companies and by governments.
I think currently the status in the north is that there's fairly good consultation on critical issues, but a couple of things are required. First of all, intervenor funding is required, and that only comes to aboriginal governments if there's a certain kind of process invoked, which is environmental impact review.
For example, Gahcho Kué, proposed by De Beers, has environmental impact review funding, and aboriginal governments have access to funding. Environmental assessment, a lower threshold of review, has no funding, so you're on your own.
If you manage to negotiate an agreement with the developer to get funding, then you have adequate funding to hire technical expertise to crunch through information and make sense of it.
There are so many diverse parties in the north that often the funding gets split into so many different fractions that it's not enough to make a big impact. It's hard to get all of the authorities to work together to actually engage and work with one or two experts, rather than 15 or 20, which often happens.
The consultation that happens when there's intervenor funding and adequate time can be quite good.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
With the proposed changes in legislation currently in Bill C-38, do you think that limiting the consultation process to an arbitrary 24 months will improve or weaken trust in the federal government's approval process?
10:05 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
The jury's out. My fear is that it will weaken it, especially because it's coming from on high and because it's an arbitrary limit on what needs to happen.
As I've articulated, I think that real questions, the good questions, come in once something's well described. So it needs to be well described so that people can actually tackle it and pull it apart and make sense of it and ask the right question. If the right question's not asked, then we end up with legacy mines.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I share some of the same concerns. In particular, you mentioned country foods, such as caribou. We look at section 35 of the Constitution Act, the duty to consult, and the court cases that have come down from that section, such as R. v. Sparrow or R. v. Van der Peet, for instance, that found an inherent right based on past cultural practice.
I'd assume that harvesting country food from caribou has always been a cultural practice in the north. What I'm concerned about in section 35 and the inherent right is that it breaks the tradition of the crown being the first step in relations with first nations, and it passes it to the cabinet. With consolidation of power in the federal cabinet for the approval of development projects, wouldn't you agree with me that this will have a negative effect on the trust of residents? Maybe it will put in jeopardy the faith people in the north have in the public consultation process.
10:10 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
It's already had that impact. The trust is being broken.
I think you're also pointing to something that hasn't been raised here today, and that is cumulative effects. The pace and scale of northern resource development could be quite fast and furious. The project proponents are simply not able to look, themselves, adequately at the cumulative effects of development on, for example, the Bathurst caribou herd. When they can't do that, it's left to the government. It should be in the public interest to think about these things. Section 35 requires that caribou, the way of life of the people, be protected. If we can't look at those kinds of issues through the federal government, we're not going to be able to look at them through any other mechanism.