Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2009

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

When we do a dispassionate analysis comparing the investor attitude of the three territories, it becomes quite clear that the situation in NWT is a complete disincentive to investors.

Did you have access to or a lot of input on how the NWT would be ranked from an investor-friendly standpoint?

[Neil McCrank]

That was put to me by a number of associations--the Mining Association and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers--that rank the different jurisdictions on their friendliness to development. I know that if you looked at them without drilling down much further, they would put the Yukon much higher than the NWT. I've forgotten exactly where Nunavut would rank.

I have some trouble with the ranking system. I don't think it tells the whole story. That's partly because in the last few years, particularly since I retired from my old job more than two years ago, I have spent a fair amount of time in South America looking at regulatory systems in places like Bolivia, Venezuela, and Brazil. I know, for instance, that the association surveys rank Bolivia higher than any of these jurisdictions in Canada. Having spent a fair amount of time in Bolivia looking at that, I think it's just dead wrong. There isn't a jurisdiction in Canada that would be as unfriendly as Bolivia, and yet they're ranked higher.

So I don't place a lot of faith in the ranking of them. They're a guide, and if they're there to ask further questions, that's helpful. In my own assessment, the Yukon would rank as the one most receptive to development. That's partly due to the fact that devolution has occurred and the Yukon government is taking steps in that direction. Nunavut might be second, and the NWT third.

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

There must be more than one set of international rankings, then, because I understood that the Yukon was ranked around fifth place. Bolivia was down in the 65th category.

[Neil McCrank]

There probably are a whole bunch of different rankings by whoever puts them forward.

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

Correct. That's the one that is oft quoted by the Yukon government. Let's put it that way.

You did make a recommendation. I think one of your 22 is dealing with something akin to a major project management office being utilized in the north. We're moving obviously in that direction. I'm just wondering if you have any words of wisdom in terms of the practicalities and the process of setting up a northern major project management office. Where would you suggest we focus, and what kind of staffing priorities?

You did indicate the difficulty in finding technical expertise in the Dominion of Canada. Maybe you have something you can share with the committee in this regard.

[Neil McCrank]

Thank you very much for the question. You're right. I was asked to take a look at that possible office.

I have two comments to make. One is that I think the office that's in southern Canada dealing with the major projects can be very successful, because the maze of trying to work your way through and coordinate even within the federal government milieu, let alone within the provincial or territorial milieu, is difficult.

There's huge hope for success south of 60 on the major projects management office. I think the same can apply to the north. One comment, though, is that it has to be northern. That was clearly delivered to me by all of those people in the north, that this has to be a northern office. It cannot be a satellite of the southern office. I agree with that. There are different issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're actually out of time, Mr. McCrank, so would you finish, please.

[Neil McCrank]

I'll just finish by saying that I have no answer in terms of capacity, but I think there would be great interest in somebody performing that role in the north.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

We will now go to the second round.

Mr. Russel, you have five minutes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. McCrank. It's good to have you with us.

I want to follow up on some of the line of questioning that has taken place around the table.

When I read your recommendations, it seems to me that many of them are predicated on proper implementation of the land claims agreements themselves. For instance, there are the land use plans, which are usually part of the land claims agreements. We've heard a number of different parties come to this committee and in other forums talking about the proper implementation of land claims. I'm just wondering if the proper implementation of land claims was an issue that was raised during your consultations. I think it also speaks to your issue of capacity. Given that a number of these boards or commissions are due to the land claims agreements, that a number of the appointees are from the land claims groups themselves, which is understandable, of course—I think it's a must—I see this as part of a land claims implementation process as well.

I want you to comment, because I heard one of my other colleagues raise this. Is the complexity having to do with the number of regulatory boards, or is it about the differing regimes in different regions? For instance, if there was consistency in terms of regulations in the northern parts of, say, the Northwest Territories and the southern part, would that make it easier? If it's not the number but the process, so to speak, maybe that's the easier thing to do than, say, opening up the land claims agreements themselves.

When you say “restructure”, that's about numbering, it seems to me. If you can do more consistency, at least with different boards, maybe that's a better way to go. Can you make some comment on that?

[Neil McCrank]

Thank you.

First with respect to whether or not concerns were expressed about the implementation of land claims agreements in total, there were and there always will be, I suppose, to some extent, some people thinking they should move faster. I don't have any comment on whether or not the federal government is performing its role in completing the land claims agreements, and implementing them or not, with the exception of the complaints that not enough money was put into funding the various boards, and that does go to capacity issues. It may or may not be the case, but my comment on it would be that even if you put all the money into a system that's not structured properly, it's not going to work much better than it did.

It leads me to the second part, and that is your question of whether or not it's inconsistency in the areas that is the concern or whether it's an actual capacity issue within a specific area. My answer is that there has been an attempt, and I think a genuine attempt, by the boards to make themselves more consistent. They have a board forum that I attended a few times when the chairmen of all the boards in the Northwest Territories get together and the chairman of the National Energy Board is there and a variety of other organizations to try to bring consistency to the table. I don't think that's going to be enough, because there's a bigger capacity issue relating to whether or not the job can be done in the local area, consistent or not with anybody else. That's where I say the issue is that complexity and capacity are almost one and the same with respect to that part of the equation.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So if we had capacity and we had consistency, would we need restructuring?

[Neil McCrank]

If you had the capacity I'm talking about in terms of professional regulatory bodies--and again, I use the word “professional” advisedly--and consistency across the boards, you probably would not, but I don't think you're going to be able to get there from here.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

You could have capacity and consistency problems with two as opposed to 17.

[Neil McCrank]

You're absolutely right.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So it depends on which way you want to look at this, I guess. It seems to me that restructuring might be more difficult. If we put money in or if we put some effort into capacity and we put it into consistency, then maybe the other more difficult task of restructuring could be put off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. McCrank, you may give a brief answer.

[Neil McCrank]

I don't want to repeat myself. If you examine the current structure and the current Constitution, I think the capacity problems are constituents of the various components. I think you'd see that capacity is going to continue to be an issue in that part of the world. As I say, it would be in the entire Dominion of Canada where you have to try to put 17 land and water boards together to do the job that I think needs to be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rickford, you have five minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McCrank, for joining us today. We'd been looking forward to talking with you about your report and its recommendations.

Mr. McCrank, I want to spend a little bit of time talking about land use planning, perhaps in not as technical a fashion, although in my own study of law I was fascinated with land use planning as it intersected with first nations communities and traditional lives of northerners particularly. Obviously, coming from the Kenora riding, that's an issue in a number of areas, including forestry and mining.

I think in our riding, which does come to the shores of Hudson Bay, we're doing a pretty good job of understanding and respecting core principles of land use planning around a number of resources. There are some serious considerations in these regards, obviously--the integration of first nations communities' sense of resource management on that land and making policy on the basis of what ministries of natural resources have viewed historically as the crown's, and in terms of licensing and traditional thoughts by first nations, including the animals on those lands, many of them migratory.

In what I have read so far, land use planning appears to be a critical issue in that it must reflect northern, in particular first nations, values in terms of use and impact. Then obviously there's the representation of things like migratory animals. I know, particularly in the Northwest Territories, that's an important process that hasn't been protected.

In view of those things, could you talk about what kinds of consultations you had with first nations in the Northwest Territories? What is their opinion or assessment of the regulatory framework, and what is their appetite for reform in these regards?

[Neil McCrank]

Thank you for that question.

It varied from north to south, with the very northern end, the delta of the Inuvialuit area, believing that their regulatory system works quite well. As you know from my report, I did not make specific comments, other than general ones, about the Inuvialuit area because I think they have actually tried to make it work, are doing so, and I didn't want to touch that.

The further south you came the less enthusiastic people were in the local communities about the current system. I did not, unfortunately, spend any time with the Dehcho community. We were supposed to, but there was a change of leadership and also there was a death in one of the families when we were trying to arrange dates, and we couldn't do it. I actually ran into Grand Chief Gerry Antoine yesterday, last night, coming down on the plane and we chatted for a little while. He now wants to get together and review this, I think. I told him what I was doing this morning, so he's interested.

There's no question that, in any of the areas, the regulatory bodies that currently exist will say to you publicly that they're very much in favour of the current system and the local input that they get from the system. This is partly, I think, because in some areas the land use plans have lagged and this is their only chance to separate an area from development. Privately, I can't think of any of the regulatory bodies I met that didn't say there had to be some change in the regulatory system, because it's simply not working from their point of view either, but they won't say it publicly.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Interesting.

In your introductory remarks you made it clear that the report was not about resource development but is about assuring that it takes place responsibly. I wondered if you might, in my last minute or so, expound on that and comment, to the extent that these questions I've asked you play a part in that responsible assessment that you've made. It was sort of an overarching theme.

[Neil McCrank]

What I meant by “responsible” is that it has been the practice I engaged in when I was doing a regulatory body, that you make decisions in the public interest, taking into account societal, environmental, and economic impacts, and in that respect make decisions in the public interest.

To respond to where I think you were going with your question, I think the land use planning function, if it's up front, will engage in a lot of the economic issues. Those will be out of the way, and you'll then deal with specifically the ones that I referred to earlier--the engineering, public safety, conservation, and environmental issues at the regulatory stage. I think they're separate, and if they can be separated—and I think they can—I think it makes for a much more logical process of development of resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

Mr. Lemay, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McCrank, you would be an excellent mediator, and I hope that the federal government will be able to recruit you once you have finished studying governments in the south, Bolivia, etc. You could come back up north, I think that we need you.

You state that once the land use plan is approved, it is the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board that should be designated as the sole regulatory body. In an ideal world, such a body would exist and be granted powers.

In your opinion, should this board be responsible for ensuring compliance with the treaties and agreements reached with the Tlicho, for example? I am talking about the land claims on this territory. The federal government is still part of this process. Are you suggesting that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board should be the ultimate authority and that the federal government, that is, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, should respect any decision it makes, for example, on land claims?