Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2009

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. McCrank, but in reply to a question from my colleague Mr. Bagnell, you just said that there is no time to waste because there are 17 regulatory bodies that are active there.

When I read your report, I get the impression that no one knows who is doing what. It is impossible to consolidate, or to figure out who is doing what in various sectors. Just look at the examples of water control, mining or natural resources.

I have a question. Aren't your recommendations being jeopardized with every day that passes?

[Neil McCrank]

Yes, if--

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Ah! You're not a politician!

[Neil McCrank]

If the system had applied in Abitibi district to what's going on in the north right now, you would not have had any development in Abitibi, in my view.

The response by the Northwest Territories government, I think, is not the correct response. They don't think there should be restructuring, and I do. That's just a difference of opinion. I do believe, as you say, that time is marching and every month we miss the opportunity to take a look at this and put in place a system that will work, if there is to be resource development, will jeopardize resource development in the north.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have two minutes left.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You are here before the committee today. I know that all 22 of your recommendations are important, but if you had to pick one as a priority, which would it be?

[Neil McCrank]

There are 22 specific recommendations and then there's the restructuring recommendation. My own view is that the restructuring is the most important recommendation, but coupled with that is that the land use plans have to be completed. None of this, by the way, in terms of my recommendations, would occur overnight. You'd have to get the land use plans in place; you'd have to put in place the restructured boards, with the right capacity, before you'd give them the authority that I say they should have as independent bodies. That would take some time, but you start the restructuring as soon as possible.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I must not have much time left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Forty-five seconds.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will continue in the second round. I sense that my colleague from the Northwest Territories has a few questions to ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Very well.

We'll go to Mr. Bevington. We welcome Mr. Bevington back to our committee. It's great to have you here again.

The member for Western Arctic, go ahead with your question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd love to get that name changed to the Northwest Territories, so if you can, convince everybody in Parliament to give me unanimous consent to get the name changed, which should have been done 10 years ago.

Anyhow, to start off, I can agree totally with your recommendation to get the land use plans done, because that's part of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is a responsibility of the federal government. That is something that has failed us over the years. Also, it has failed the other boards. The boards in the Northwest Territories can't rely on the land use plans to give the basis to make judgments on projects.

So in the absence of this basis of understanding that the land use plan gives, every single development has to be judged on its own merits, with no framework. As a person who sat on the Mackenzie Valley environmental assessment board, I know those problems, so I'm with you 100% on that.

As for the restructuring, I am absolutely opposed to that. In the early nineties, the Mulroney government decided that we would have regional land claims in the Northwest Territories. That decision was made. We were going towards comprehensive claims, and the decision by the federal government was to go to regional claims.

We have adapted to that. We have adapted the direction that we want to take constitutionally in the development of the Northwest Territories as an independent political unit based on regional land claims, not on a comprehensive claim. We've made that adjustment within the Northwest Territories. That's why I think you quite clearly see the Government of Northwest Territories saying no to the idea of restructuring.

Let's just go back to these 17 boards. If you're going to drill in the Sahtu region, for example, or if you're going to do a seismic program, there is one place where you put in your application: the Sahtu Land and Water Board. The land and water board has 45 days to put that forward, if they find that it has significant impact, to one single environmental impact review board for the whole Northwest Territories.

So in any region, there are only two steps in the environmental assessment process. The regional step deals within that region with the type of project going ahead. If there are problems with it, it goes to one single board for the whole Northwest Territories. So the complexity of it.... For regional use for most projects, it is within the defined regions. These are big regions of hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. So within those regions, there is only one board that deals with the application, and within the Northwest Territories, there is only one board for all the regions that deals with environmental assessment. So it's not that complex.

Where the complexity came in, in the last seven years, was with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, which traversed a number of different regions. There was a cooperation plan struck for that, and whatever happened with that is fine.

Really, that's the way it is. You've made your point about restructuring. I'm making mine.

When it comes to some of the other recommendations, did you take into account the legitimate desire of the people of the Northwest Territories to control development? Was that part of your mandate?

[Neil McCrank]

The answer to the second question is yes. Obviously the issue of co-management of the resources is currently in place. I still maintain--as I think I have as part of the theme of that report--that northern influence and local development influence are very important. I'm suggesting that the way that comes about is through the land use plans, where areas are decided as to whether or not they are subject to development and, secondly, with respect to the composition of the regulatory body, if it were restructured into one, where the local community has some say as to who's going to be on that board.

Mr. Bevington, I wonder if I can address the question that you asked. I think it's a good one, and that is, you really only apply to one board, therefore why am I suggesting this complexity? There are two answers to that.

One part is that most of the developers I talk to and know work in more than one area. They work in a variety of different areas, and if they do, they have to learn and understand and work with different water boards in all of the different areas, for instance. That leads to complexity and it leads to inconsistency, because there are allegations—rightfully or wrongfully made—that there are inconsistent decisions made from one region to another in the same general area.

The second part of that is this. I think it doesn't address the issue that I think is perhaps the most important, and that is the capacity to perform the function of a professional. I use that term advisedly, because I'm not talking about professional designations in terms of LL.B.s or engineering degrees, but professional in the sense of their approach to regulatory issues. I think the capacity to have boards in all of those areas that can perform that function is questionable. I would say that if you look at the entire dominion of Canada to provide 17 regulatory bodies in the resource development area that can provide the kind of professional approach that I'm talking about, you'd be hard pressed in the dominion of Canada, let alone in the Mackenzie Valley.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You still have about 45 seconds, Mr. Bevington, if you have a short question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You said there seemed to be satisfaction with actual appointments made by the minister, whereas the record for the Northwest Territories through the Liberal government and through the Conservative government is that many appointments have made headlines. People are outraged at the political appointments that have been made to these boards. How could you say in your report that there seems to be satisfaction with the actual appointments?

I have another letter here from our minister complaining about an appointment that took a year and a half and then they rejected the Government of Northwest Territories' appointment to this particular board. It just goes on and on. We've had that problem from day one. How did you come up with this claim that there seems to be satisfaction with the actual appointments?

[Neil McCrank]

I came up with it based on what I heard, Mr. Bevington. The process, the delays in making appointments and so on, were the subject of debate, but this is the first I've heard of anyone saying that the appointments that were actually made were inappropriate.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Todd Burlingame, Gabrielle Mackenzie-Scott not being appointed.... Don't you remember hearing about those ones?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're actually out of time, Mr. Bevington.

Mr. McCrank, if you want to finish up there, feel free.

[Neil McCrank]

First of all, Gabrielle Mackenzie—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Raised in Parliament--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bevington, let Mr. McCrank finish, please.

[Neil McCrank]

The lack of reappointment of Gabrielle Mackenzie-Scott occurred after I had finished my report, in actual fact. I'm just saying what I've heard from those in the north, including the NWT government, the Nunavut and Yukon governments, the local communities, the regulatory bodies themselves, and the industry. I heard no complaints about the actual people who sat on these commissions and boards. They thought they were trying their best to do a good job. That's what I heard. I may not have heard the full facts, but that's what I heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Bevington and Mr. McCrank.

Now we'll go to Mr. Duncan for seven minutes.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to finally meet the person behind the report.

I was in Parliament here when most of the comprehensive agreements were argued, debated, and put through this Parliament, so I can remember many of the concerns that were expressed about the creation of a plethora of boards and commissions at that time. In a sense, your report validated a lot of the concerns that were expressed. I think it's an important document because it's a benchmark document.

It seems that we are spending a lot of our time right now discussing the NWT as opposed to the Yukon and Nunavut. I heard from a third party that there was quite a bit of difference in the approach taken by northerners, depending on their generation. Do you share that observation?

[Neil McCrank]

Yes and no. At the end of the day, I think most of the recommendations reflected what we talked about in Yellowknife, and all generations were around the table. But if you drilled down a little further, I think you would find that those in the younger generation, particularly from the local community, were more interested in seeing some progress made in development than some of the older generation groups. I think that's the only way I could put it. But it was not paramount in my report.