Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2013

[Jim Clarke]

Yes. You're referring to the New Prosperity gold-copper mine in B.C. This is a project that has recently concluded a panel review. The panel has recently issued its independent report concluding that there are significant adverse environmental effects.

Now it's up to the Government of Canada to make a decision as to whether or not those effects are justified in the circumstances. A decision has not yet been made on that project, but the panel has issued its report.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Sure.

[Jim Clarke]

What you've probably seen in the media recently are challenges by the proponent on some of the panel's conclusions that stem from some of the science emanating from departments like Natural Resources Canada. All I can say on the matter is that's the view of the proponent, and there is analysis going on as we speak in terms of the comments made by the proponent, but it's clearly at this point a proponent view only.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Okay. I'm just going to read out what the proponent is suggesting, and what their comment is. This is from their website:

The Panel relied heavily on modeling undertaken by NRCan which indicated that there would be significant seepage from the tailings storage facility into Fish Lake. The Panel's findings regarding anticipated seepage, and the related impacts on Fish Lake, are integral to the Panel's conclusion that the project was likely to cause significant adverse effects on fish and fish habitat, wetlands and aboriginal interest in the Fish Lake area.

There are just a few more sentences:

The design proposed by Taseko for the tailings storage facility includes development of a continuous low permeability compact soil liner to restrict seepage losses. This is a common and acceptable practice for modern facilities that have been recently permitted and developed in British Columbia and elsewhere in the world. The NRCan design, which was the basis of their analysis, is completely different than the Taseko design, as NRCan has assumed that the low permeability basin liner is not included and that seepage will therefore readily leak into more previous overburden and fractured bedrock.

From your perspective, it seems there was flawed data used in the analysis. Can you speak to that?

[Jim Clarke]

From the proponent's perspective at present there was flawed data. That's the information the proponent has submitted.

The issue right now is that the panel process is essentially completed. There were public hearings, and there was ample opportunity for all participants to put their information on the record and to question each other. The panel completed the hearings, wrote its report, and then submitted its report.

This recent information from the proponent is after the hearings were completed and the panel's report was issued. Now it's actually a matter for the Minister of the Environment to determine what the next step is, if there's any next step, with respect to this information, given that it was submitted after the hearings had concluded and after the panel issued its report. It's inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the proponent's comments post-hearings.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Okay, thank you.

There's just one more issue. You already know my riding is Prince George—Peace River, so the northern gateway project is a big concern for a lot of the proponents and others. People are waiting for a decision. What is the timeline? We know that's what the MPMO does; it keeps us informed of when the decision is forthcoming. Can you brief us on a timeline of when that is coming?

[Jim Clarke]

Yes. The panel report is due by the end of December, and there's a six-month period for the government to issue its response. A decision will come by June of next year.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.

We go now to Mr. Gravelle. You have up to five minutes.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions on slide number 5.

Prior to the MPMO initiative, who was responsible for what the MPMO is doing?

[Terence Hubbard]

The MPMO was created to fill a gap within the system, so the MPMO has not taken on responsibilities that other departments and agencies had prior to that. It was essentially created to fill a gap where there was no department or agency that had these responsibilities.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Who's responsibility would it have been to fill in the gaps before you came along?

[Terence Hubbard]

Prior to the creation of the MPMO, there would have been federal regulatory departments and agencies that would have had responsibilities for these projects, left to sort out among themselves and try to figure out among themselves who should be leading to address these issues.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

The second bullet in slide 5 says, “Inconsistent Aboriginal consultation”, and the fifth bullet says, “Insufficient follow-up and enforcement”. That would have been the previous government's doing.

[Terence Hubbard]

Again, these are difficult issues, and these issues have evolved very much over time.

In terms of our approach to aboriginal consultations, it's a fairly new responsibility in terms of the duty to consult. That duty to consult has been defined more clearly over the years as a result of court decisions. Over the last few years we've been getting a clearer and clearer perspective on what exactly our obligations are. This has allowed us to get in front of these issues in trying to develop a more consistent approach to managing these responsibilities.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

[Terence Hubbard]

In terms of follow-up and enforcement, we identified a gap in the legislative framework in terms of not having the tools or approaches that regulators needed to be able to ensure enforcement of these responsibilities.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

All right. Thank you.

On slide 7 there's a nice little map with a lot of little dots on it. Could you supply us with a map that indicates where the dots are, or what project it is? Would that be possible?

[Jim Clarke]

Yes.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

On slide 12, “Enhanced Aboriginal Consultant and Engagement”, the fourth bullet says, “Authority to develop MOUs”, memorandums of understanding, “and Protocols to bring clarity and consistency to the Aboriginal consultation process”. The way this is worded, “authority to develop”, tells me you're going to develop a memorandum of understanding regardless of how the first nations feel.

[Terence Hubbard]

No, the authority is specifically to have a mandate to enter into discussions with first nations communities that desire to develop such agreements.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

All right, thank you.

I only have a couple of minutes left, so I have a couple of quick questions.

Who appointed the Prosperity mine panel?

[Jim Clarke]

That was the Ministry of the Environment.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

It was federal.

You talked about the proponent saying the report was flawed. Who's the proponent? Was that the owner?

[Jim Clarke]

It's Taseko Mines, the company that's proposing to build the project.