Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 982
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 14:23
I'm wondering if you could highlight anecdotally, without getting into specifics, at least some of the IBAs that benefit Yukon communities and indeed the entire Yukon, and give us your sense of the cooperative and direct working relationship that exists outside of government, just between Yukon mines and the communities in which they work.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 14:25
In respect of that point, with the global climate in terms of investment, the portion highlighted by YMAB, and your own testimony today, if absolutely shelving the timeline piece were on the table for this committee, what impact would that have on employment and the economy in the territory, in your estimation?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 14:56
Thank you, Chair.
Indeed we're onto the fruitful piece of the day's meetings. I appreciate that some of the questions have put you in a position between a rock and a hard place. Nonetheless, it's important that the committee ask them.
I'm going to paraphrase a bit of everything we've heard today. Invariably the committee will go back to Ottawa and carefully review all of the testimony, because there has been a lot. I've been taking notes as diligently as possible to make sure I have an accurate reflection of what's been said.
I do know that Yukon first nations are still here and are indeed engaged in this discussion and are listening to this. I think right now they're absorbing what you've articulated and they will indeed have an opportunity to comment on it. I think all committee members look forward to that.
I think the grand chief presented her concerns well today. I think all the chiefs did. They outlined them clearly for us to review. They very clearly articulated that the clause on timelines, the clause on adequacy, the clause on binding policy direction, and the clause on delegated authority should all be removed. In fact, Deputy Chief Olsen, on the issue of timelines, said they wouldn't provide any benefit to industry. We're hearing very polarized comments on that one piece.
In summary, I didn't hear—although, I think we'd love to hear it, if it were expressed—an invitation to meet and talk about those four pieces again. I did hear very clearly talk about removal of those four pieces. Ms. Rippin Armstrong said she has indication that there is a possibility to discuss those four pieces.
Ms. Rippin Armstrong, what level of indication have you received that first nations are indeed very interested in discussing those four pieces? Are there specifics that you can recommend to the committee? I do appreciate it would have been a great question to ask the first nations. I'm sorry that we don't have the opportunity right this second, but I think we can afford that, because they are listening, so we'll get some comments on this.
From your point of view, as an industry stakeholder in this, what have you heard that would indicate there is definitely room to move on the timeline and adequacy pieces, that you could help us with?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 15:01
I think the committee generally directs witnesses that if they are not able to give a fulsome response and there are additional pieces to answers, they are always invited to follow up with written submissions, which will be valuable. Then we're able to really look through them as we go. It's tough to simply keep track of everything that's been said today. Nonetheless, there have been very valuable things. We appreciate your input on this, and the recommendations from each of you. We certainly look forward to looking everything over.
My time has probably expired, Chair.
Thank you all for your input.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 15:40
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to each of you for your comments.
Mr. Morrison, I appreciate your references to the cumulative effects. We've certainly been positioning the cumulative effects angle as a value piece in this bill, because it's providing additional environmental protection and preservation over the course of time. But you did highlight that some of that needs to be defined in a clearer fashion.
Would you anticipate, then, that this is something that YESAA itself would seize itself with in consultation with key stakeholders, first nations and industry, around how you go about setting out what cumulative effects can look like so that you can determine what could potentially happen five years down the road?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 15:42
Thank you for that comment.
Mr. Schmidt, thank you for your testimony. Anecdotally, you've provided some really tangible examples from your experience of where delays can occur at the district office level. You mentioned that you think somebody should be able to provide policy to the district office, as well as to the board, to ensure consistency in the application. Of course, in part this binding policy piece from the federal minister to the board is designed to provide that consistent application of policy. The one thing I think has gotten the message out a little bit, which does warrant clear communication, is that the binding policy direction envisioned by Bill S-6 with respect to the federal minister's role is not allowed to interfere with any project currently under way or completed. What you're talking about, what is envisioned, is really an administrative type of thing.
Can you speak to whether, if administrative consistency and policy direction were provided at the district office level, that would in turn benefit your ability to work, and, indeed, your ability to adhere to the environmental and socio-economic preservation that we demand in this territory under YESAA?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 15:45
Thank you.
Really at the heart of this legislation, YESAA and Bill S-6, is to ensure that we maintain our environmental integrity in this territory and that we maintain our socio-economic responsibilities with that. Those two things involve some very different measures, but both are equally important.
Can you perhaps describe, say, from an industry point of view, how committed to ensuring environmental integrity the people you work with in the placer mining industry are? Do you have examples of that? Also, how committed are you to making sure you participate in the socio-economic responsibilities we all have in our regions and in the territory?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 16:07
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith, I appreciated your comments towards the end there. You made some valid points, and they're well taken.
I'm not sure if you were present this morning when the premier talked about finding a path forward and, indeed, extended an opportunity to engage in bilateral discussions to work on the engagement of Bill S-6. He certainly promoted the passage of the bill, but he recognized clearly that continued consultation and greater work could be undertaken on this bilateral piece. The position of Yukon first nations is that their preference would be a trilateral discussion to that end, and we certainly take that consideration under direct advisement here as a committee.
You posited that industry would bring value to the table from a technical point of view and would allow your concerns to be understood more clearly. Taking that route, are you confident there might be some solution to these four outstanding pieces?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 16:10
Thank you for that. Indeed, that's exactly the task of the committee, to seize itself with reviewing the bill through the stakeholder and witness testimony we've heard from all Yukoners today. It's been very positive and good for us to hear all the perspectives. Those points are well taken.
When we look at the evolution of this bill, there certainly has been feedback and advice from industry over the course of many years, some of which has stemmed from the five-year review. Some of these frustrations have carried on.
Can you refresh my memory? I know the chamber of mines had submitted its position on this to Yukon first nations. I should have asked them if they had received a response, but I didn't. Did the Klondike Placer Miners' Association forward anything to Yukon first nations and generate any sort of back-and-forth discussion to pre-empt its own side discussion on these things, so each one clearly understood its position, or not?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 16:11
That's fair enough. You've highlighted that this could be an opportunity for that piece, and of course I do know that Yukon first nations are listening to the comments you're making here today, and I'm sure they appreciate that perspective.
Mr. Morrison, when we look at the executive committee piece that you worked through three different times, you did talk about the need for timelines. What are we talking about with respect to timelines? You mentioned that sometimes tens of millions of dollars are at risk when these timelines aren't clearly defined. Can you perhaps expand on why those tens of millions of dollars are at risk, and what happens in that regard if timelines are stretched?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 16:56
Thank you very much.
I appreciate everybody's input.
Of course, part of the challenge that we're hearing is that we're seized with this as a committee to weigh things out. On one hand, we have your testimony, Ma'am, where you're talking about YESAA getting better and better, but then we have a YMAB report that talks about the assessments getting worse and worse. We're seized with deciding on whether they are getting better and better or worse and worse. From an industry perspective, they're getting worse and worse; from your perspective, they're getting better and better. That presents an unique challenge for us considering what is actually going on.
On the timeline piece that was brought up, we spoke to the chair of YESAB this morning. She indicated that the average timeframe to complete a review right now is about 57 days, and the timeline is going to move to about 270. That raises a concern, in the sense that what it might do is actually invite greater consultation and more input on a project, and then that would intensify the need for YESAB, or a district office, or the executive council to have the capacity to deal with all the input that's coming in. She felt that there was going have to be some adaptation on YESAB's part to work on that, with in fact the lengthening of the time period.
On one hand, if it's lengthened and we get more input, more feedback, and more stakeholder investment, that should be viewed as a good thing. The capacity and financial piece for YESAB is outside the scope of the bill, but certainly can be addressed by the federal government and the partners involved. Industry has said that the adequacy review right now is being used to conduct the assessment outside of the timelines and that's posing some direct challenges for them.
If YESAB right now is completing these projects in 57 days and then is allowed to extend them to 270 to invite greater stakeholder input, wouldn't that be a good outcome? The chair said that she's not sure that it was the intended outcome, but wouldn't it be viewed a good outcome to have more community engagement and more community input on projects? I think keeping it down to 57 days is great, and if it stretches longer, this provides them the time to provide the broad consultation that everyone is talking about.
Mr. Rifkind?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 17:00
Right, and YESAB talked a bit about that this morning in terms of making sure they have a fiduciary duty to do that and achieve that. There are of course provisions in the bill to allow extensions of those time limits to carry on. There is a stopgap measure in place if projects are very complex, such that they can be extended. You're aware of those sections.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 17:01
No. The minister can extend those timelines for up to two months on the first additional piece and then they can be extended indefinitely from that point.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-30 17:02
That's a fair point—
Results: 121 - 135 of 982 | Page: 9 of 66

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data