Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 982
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 11:56
I asked the minister last week, in specific reference to the binding policy direction embedded in the legislation, whether it would interfere with assessment. I think we've already answered this question, from your perspective, and know that it's not interfering with assessments.
The minister went on to affirm that the binding policy direction :
[I]n regard to policy direction, any policy direction first would have to be consistent with the land claims agreement and legislation, in this case the Umbrella Final Agreement and the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act.
I know this question was posed specifically in the Senate hearings to Daryn Leas, who was providing technical advice. We talked about the implications for land claims and whether or not they would prevail over territorial legislation. He testified in the Senate:
It is true our land claim agreements would prevail over federal or territorial legislation.... [T]hose amendments technically are not affecting the final agreement, or maybe even the fact that the final agreement is going to prevail....
How much confidence do you have, under section 35 of the Constitution Act, under the UFA, under each self-government agreement, and indeed under the proposed sections embedded in Bill S-6 at this current point that refer back to each and every one of those agreements and from the minister's own comments to the committee, that the Umbrella Final Agreement will prevail in respect to these amendments?
I'm sure anybody who is technical is going to respond to that.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 11:59
On one hand we have content, and on another hand we have process. First and foremost, the content needs to be solid so that we don't have a degradation of our environmental regime here in Yukon and so that our socio-economic considerations are well invested. You're making the point that process can in some forms and fashion affect that. I appreciate your point.
I wonder, though, would you not consider the bill—and I think there's value for the public to understand this piece.... It is an unusual step to provide a bill in its draft form, in secret form, so that you can actually look at it ahead of time. There's not joint drafting of a federal piece of legislation, but the minister cannot disclose it before it is tabled in Parliament.
Would you not consider the bill itself as brought forward a sufficient forum to understand exactly the direction you're going in, in light of the fact that the deck really did spell out those four pieces in it? Then it moved in a subsequent meeting to the actual legislation.
You had an opportunity to look at it. Is that not a sufficient forum?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 12:01
Thank you for that.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:16
Thank you, Ms. Randall, for appearing here today and congratulations on your appointment to the board.
I'm going to ask you a question in particular reference to some of the changes that have moved into Bill S-6, outside of previous YESAA legislation.
In clause 10, proposed subsection 43(2) reads as follows:
If the proponent fails to provide the required supplementary information within the period prescribed by the rules, the designated office, executive committee or panel of the Board may suspend its assessment activities until the proponent provides that information—
How is that different from what currently exists under the legislation?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:17
Regardless of defined timelines, should there not be sufficient information, can the executive council or the screening-designated offices effectively stop the clock and require the proponent to provide additional information?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:18
Thank you.
The premier was here this morning and I think the phrase he used was that the meat in the sandwich is the regulations. I know we're here to seize ourselves of the specifics of Bill S-6 itself, but an act is followed by regulation. I'm just wondering if there are any changes in this act that are leading us toward regulatory development and providing greater certainty and continuance of environmental and socio-economic integrity.
Are you able to speak to any of that “meat in the sandwich” conversation which the premier referred to this morning?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:19
Effectively he was saying that we have the act, but next it's going to be the regulations and the regulations will speak to some of the things that we're speculating about at this point. We're making some speculation on what could occur and what can't occur, which will be tightened up by specific regulations.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:19
Would that speak to the one outstanding piece of the “significant change” definition? The timelines in Bill S-6 are referring to an assessment as not being required unless there is significant change to a proposal. If you're defining triggers in the regulations, would it start to define what might trigger “significant change”?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:20
Okay. But that question, I presume, could come up. I'm certainly not asking you to say that this is exactly how they're going to be defined, but that option is at least open in that process. Is it, or do you not know?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:20
Okay. Thank you.
Can you again just reiterate the board membership and the executive committee membership for me?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:21
Those board appointments are made by...?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 13:21
There's an additional change in Bill S-6 in respect to extension of time limits. There's an initial provision that sets out that there can only be time limit extensions for a maximum of two months, taking into account circumstances specific to a proposal for a project, and then a subsection that follows that allows a recommendation to be made to further extend those time limits for any period.
That, I presume, would have been put in to anticipate much larger-scale projects that might come forward for which the timelines in the bill right now would be impossible to meet.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 14:19
Thank you, witnesses.
Ms. Armstrong, my question will be for you. You urge that the bill be set aside and that the government come back to the table with Yukon first nations to talk about their concerns. I think they made their concerns pretty clear this morning. Their position was that the four clauses be entirely removed. From that point of view, I'm not entirely sure there's a lot of room to talk about those four pieces. It seems to me they'll be satisfied if those four pieces are completely removed.
Also, when I look at the Yukon Minerals Advisory Board report, they rendered a fairly scathing assessment in 2013. They said they've chosen “to focus on...the key issue negatively impacting industry; the deterioration in the efficiency and reliability of the assessment and licensing of mining projects in the territory.”
They've highlighted that the “proponents' experience securing approvals has worsened dramatically”, and “[G]radual deterioration in the interpretation and administration of existing laws and regulations by government agencies [is creating] uncertainty...affecting capital investment”. They also talk about the deterioration of the investment climate in the Yukon.
One of the signatories to that was Eira Thomas, who is the CEO of Kaminak.
I guess I'm wondering, in light of the fact that Yukon first nations' position is pretty clear on the timeline assessment piece, whether it would be your position now that we just remove the timeline assessment piece entirely, and that would allow us to move on.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 14:21
I know you've made your position on that question clear, Mr. Thrall, so I won't repeat that question.
Mr. Hartland, with respect to the mining industry, you indicated that it represents over 400 employers in this territory. Would those include Yukon first nation mining companies as well?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 14:22
Mr. Thrall, you spoke about engagement at the community level not just for first nations but for all Yukoners. I'm wondering if you have any anecdotal experience generally speaking about the IBAs that have been initiated in the territory, which benefit communities broadly and our territory on a wide basis.
Results: 106 - 120 of 982 | Page: 8 of 66

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data