Natural Resources Committee on June 21st, 2012

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

So as they get education, they tend to leave their communities?

[Gordon Macdonald]

That's correct.

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

I think all of us from rural communities face that challenge.

[Gordon Macdonald]

Absolutely. The same thing's happening there.

We also face a challenge with professionals, with getting professionals to live in the north where they're really looking for something more urban. In comparison with where a lot of the mine sites could be, Yellowknife's not a bad city to live in.

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

Okay.

I think we're getting short on time here, so I wonder if the other two witnesses have any comments.

[Jody Kuzenko]

The only thing I would offer is that it's an issue for us as well, most acutely in our Thompson operations, where we've announced a shutdown of the smelter refinery. We're chronically 12% short of staff there.

We've launched what we call a “grow our own” project that is specifically targeted at aboriginal people and youth and women—untapped potential of approximately, we estimate, 35,000 people. We specifically go into communities and give them some education and awareness of mining.

We also, like my colleague here, encourage people to stay in school. We give them some hands-on process operator information to enable them to make choices to become our future employees.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

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

We go now to you, Mr. Bevington, and if you leave some time, to Ms. Ashton.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Macdonald. I want to thank you for your presentation. Diavik has turned out to be a very good corporate citizen in the Northwest Territories. You went through an extensive environmental assessment process. I was actually engaged in it as a member of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

You brought up some issues. The fish habitat compensation was to create habitat on the side of your dike to improve the landing area. I seem to remember something about that. Perhaps I have that wrong.

On the effluent standards, one of the unanswered questions in the environmental assessment process was on the waste rock degradation and leaching. I think that was something that was unknown at the time of the environmental assessment, because we were moving into areas we were unfamiliar with. Environmental assessment sometimes can't provide all the answers right off the bat.

The closure financial security probably has something to do with the unknown factors that enter into any mining operation in a new area. Don't you agree?

[Gordon Macdonald]

Yes, I do.

First, on the fish habitat, we have two different compensation programs. The one you're talking about is for in-lake loss of habitat within the large lake itself, within Lac de Gras. The one I was referring to is for the small lakes that are actually on the island.

On the uncertainty, that's absolutely why the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board granted us a reduction in our closure security deposit. It was for the management plans and the actions we've taken on our waste rock management program, which were uncertain at the time of the environmental assessment. It's why we were willing to accept that higher bond. We said that we would come up with a research program and would come up with management practices that would address it.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes.

Now I visited the site before the mine was built. This is a site that had 265 archaeological sites on the island. So it was well used by people through millennia, because it's a very rich area. There were also extensive caribou tracks on the island. The island was riddled with them. At the time, we had a real question about what was going to happen to the caribou herds with the linear expansion of the diamond industry through there. What we've seen since is that the caribou herds in that area have had a precipitous decline, according to the Government of the Northwest Territories. And we've seen reductions in hunting requirements. So when you deal with these types of developments in new areas, there are very extensive impacts you have to look at very carefully.

The last point I'd like to make, and maybe you can comment on it, is that you've decided to build wind turbines, which I think is a fabulous thing you're doing there. But during the environmental assessment process, there was a lack of attention paid to alternatives for energy. You and I know that the major environmental impact of the Diavik mine is the need to import diesel fuel. What we saw with an environmental assessment, even with the intensity you were suggesting, is that some of the answers weren't given. For a government that gets royalties and taxes based on your profit, we kind of missed it on the energy management side in the environmental assessment. We didn't look at hydro. We didn't look at wind.

I'm just trying to make the point to you that environmental assessment, don't you agree, is important to do right. It's important to examine all the issues. It's not a certain science.

[Gordon Macdonald]

I absolutely agree. In our case, we actually looked at wind and hydro energy at the environmental assessment stage, and they weren't economically viable. In fact, if we—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I beg to differ. Hydro was not considered. We were not allowed to present on that particular one.

[Gordon Macdonald]

Sir, we looked at hydro.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

But it wasn't part of the environmental assessment. The alternatives weren't in the environmental impact statement.

[Gordon Macdonald]

I'd have to check to confirm that. We did look at it.

On the wind side, we have looked backwards. We only have 10 years of mining left, and we're putting in wind power now. If we'd done it earlier, it might not have been the right technology. There has been a technology change in the last 20 years, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Ashton, go ahead.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

My question is for Ms. Kuzenko.

As you might know, I am proud to represent Thompson, which is actually my hometown as well. Vale bought out Inco, the mining company as a result of which Thompson was created, and we worked quite closely with the company.

We've seen some challenges—loss of purchasing jobs, loss of payroll jobs—and of course on November 17, 2010, we had a devastating announcement about the closure of the smelter and the refinery, and the loss of our value-added jobs through that. My position as MP, and the position of the people of Thompson, has been that value-added jobs are an integral part of the operation, given that they come from the mining wealth that exists in the community and under the ground we walk on.

We were concerned that the federal government was involved as well, through the $1 billion low-interest loan through Export Development Canada. That is something that's been raised on numerous occasions.

I understand there are some potential new developments, and some discussions. I'm wondering, to what extent is Vale committed to ensuring value-added jobs are created at Vale in Thompson?

[Jody Kuzenko]

I would say we're highly committed, and that's not just lip service. In Thompson, regrettably we did have to announce the closure of the smelter and the nickel refinery, in no small part because the feed from our Voisey's Bay operation was going to be processed at our Long Harbour hydromet plant. The economics of bringing feed from Voisey's all the way to Thompson for smelting and refining just wasn't viable, quite apart from the air emissions issues we were facing federally in Thompson.

Transitioning to a mine-mill operation there is something we take very seriously, which is particularly focused on our employees there. Our Thompson operation, as you may well know, is very much like a family. We don't want to see job loss there, which is precisely the reason we're looking at such a significant investment in our 1D mine. One billion dollars is a lot of money. We're at the latter stages of making these decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Ms. Ashton, your time is up.

Do you want to finish, Ms. Kuzenko?

[Jody Kuzenko]

The thing I would close on is that our economic development working group is specifically aimed at ensuring jobs are created in Thompson for years to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Thank you.

We go now to Mr. McGuinty, for up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'd like to come back to the topic today, which is actually regulatory reform.

Thank you all for coming and being here.

I'm hoping to get your insight as practitioners on the front lines: Ms. Briño, as a member of a trade association; Ms. Kuzenko, as a practitioner who is shepherding through applications; Mr. Amos, as a person who participates in EA processes and examines regulatory reform from the ground up; and Mr. Macdonald, as someone who has been through this process and is still in the midst of it.

I'm going to ask a couple of snapper questions first.

I'm going to turn to you, Mr. Amos. The government has been trying to justify a lot of the changes it brought to bear in the budget by whipping up a very unfortunate campaign, trying to level unfounded accusations against environmental groups in the country.

It's the worst kind of despicable targeting that I've seen in my 27 years of working in this field. Mr. Amos, is your group a radical group? Do you receive money, for example, from.... Are you laundering money? Is Ecojustice laundering money from the United States?

[Prof. William Amos]

I appreciate the leading question.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Give me a leading answer.

[Prof. William Amos]

I'll be frank. Internally Ecojustice has found the government's approach on this issue of charitable activities by the environmental community to be offensive.

Ecojustice has been around for 20 years, and 75% to 80% of our budget comes from average Canadians. We don't accept government money. We accept very little corporate money, because our corporate screen is so tight. We do accept some U.S. foundation money. I think it might be 2% or 3% of our budget.

It just strikes us as more than rich...it strikes us as a frontal attack on civil society when responsible groups who work hard and who aren't paid a fortune to represent, for free, community groups, first nations, municipalities, and individuals across the country, are subjected to this kind of treatment.

That's an honest reaction. We don't have an interest in playing politics on this issue. We would really rather it went away.