Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Scott Kent]

Well, as Claire mentioned in her presentation, there was a joint study done by Alaska and the Yukon, completed a couple of years ago. Certainly what we would hope the Government of Canada could do would be to continue to work with the U.S. government. Premier Fentie and the Yukon government continue to work with Governor Palin on this initiative, and any work our parliamentarians can do with the U.S. administration and the Alaska congressional delegation in Washington would be helpful.

Estimates for this pipeline.... It has the potential to unlock some of the world's largest deposits of iron ore, tungsten, lead, and zinc, so it would have a very huge impact. We plan on including results of that study in our joint infrastructure presentation with the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Now, Mr. Lemay, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you for being here.

First, I do not want to be disrespectful, but I will have to leave at 10 o'clock. The proceedings of the House begin at 10 o'clock, and I am scheduled to speak about an agreement with the Aboriginal communities of British Columbia.

That being said, I see that you are all prominent business people. I hope that you received the McCrank report. If you did not, I would suggest that you obtain a copy and read it attentively. This report seems to lay the groundwork for what the Canadian government wants to implement.

I will just read you the following:

Northern Canada has the potential to manage its non-renewable resources in the public interest [and here is where it becomes interesting] if it balances the economic and social benefits of development with the need to provide for the protection of the environment.

I have a very simple question. How will you comply with this very important recommendation from the McCrank report, that is, how will you balance the economic and social benefits of development with the need to provide for the protection of the environment?

That is my only question, and you have the remaining four minutes to reply. You can go one by one, in the order you wish. Who wants to go first?

[Lou Covello]

Okay, I'll go first.

I don't think this is a problem as far as the mining industry is concerned. The mining industry has traditionally been conservation-minded, and the footprint that's used by a given mine is much smaller than even a small village in the Northwest Territories right now. The benefits can be enormous, and the area we have to work with is a huge area. Collectively, Nunavut and the NWT represent one-third the area of Canada, and we have pretty well no development there at all. We will never see the degree of development we've seen in northern Quebec and northern Ontario.

[Randy Ottenbreit]

Mr. Lemay, I would comment or respond this way.

In October of 2004, proponents of the Mackenzie gas project submitted a number of applications for approval by the National Energy Board, and in support of that we submitted something called an environmental impact statement. In the course of that document there are a number of commitments made by the proponents to ensure environmental integrity is maintained, to address any adverse social impacts that may arise from the project, and to enhance both social and economic benefits associated with the project.

We have put that information forward before the joint review panel, and at this point in time we're waiting for them to respond. We believe the proposal put forward does strike an appropriate balance that respects environmental, social, and economic matters.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I would just like to point out that you don't have to press the button. Just signal, and the gentleman in the corner will turn your mike on.

[Mike Peters]

I would agree with my colleagues that striking that balance is not something that scares industry. This is something we believe we're very capable of, and I think a lot of the elements of the system are in place with the land claims, which established certain rights and certain socio-economic expectations. The legislation is in place from an environmental assessment point of view.

Industry has a long track record of innovation in terms of driving our performance and new technologies we use to reduce our footprint. I think industry is willing to bring that know-how to the north.

When we suggested there are problems with the regulatory system, it's not that there are problems with these requirements. What we're looking for is clarity from governments and from the communities in terms of how they want us to do business under that framework and how to meet their expectations on both environmental and socio-economic performance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead.

[Scott Kent]

From a Yukon perspective, since 2003 we've had devolution of control over our land, water, minerals, forests, that type of thing. We are in a bit of a different situation from our northern neighbours. We have the YESAA process, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, which has been well tested on a number of smaller projects. There are also two executive committees that deal with larger projects—a transmission line as well as a mining project with Claire's company. The Carmacks copper project has gone through the process, and it provides a strong balance between the environmental and socio-economic issues, as well as significant involvement with local first nations and local communities affected by those projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bevington, it's good to see you again.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the delegates and the witnesses.

Mr. Ottenbreit, you described the gas and oil industry and its potential in the Northwest Territories. I've heard the presentation from the mining industry, and they are basically talking about an industrial strategy. Do you think it would be appropriate to have an industrial strategy for the Mackenzie Valley, where you have a resource that's equivalent to what is now available to Alberta?

[Mike Peters]

That is what we're referring to when we talk about the need to bring balance to the land use plans. I would suggest that we don't need separate industrial and protected-area strategies. We need to have one conversation about how to enable development and reach our conservation goals. We ought to deal with this in one conversation rather than in separate processes. Problems can arise when conservation interests are advanced separately from industrial interests. I would suggest that an individual industrial strategy is not the way to go.

[Randy Ottenbreit]

I'm here talking about a specific project, as opposed to the industry at large. Our experience with the Mackenzie gas project suggests that there are sufficient measures in place that provide a framework within which development can occur. The land use plan, in the case of the Gwich'in territory, is in place. The land use plans are moving forward, though we recognize that a land use plan with the Sahtu is not in place. We have tried to integrate those kinds of considerations into our plans. I would say that the environment now exists within which development can proceed.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

We've seen the Alberta oil sands development done individually, and we've seen the result of lack of industrial planning there. With respect to the negotiations with the federal government, what are you looking for? The U.S. Congress has announced a potential $30-billion loan guarantee. What are you looking for from the federal government to support the pipeline?

[Randy Ottenbreit]

Mr. Bevington, I would like to make one comment on the last question. The issue is not a concern about too much development; it's about the lack of development. People are anxious to have development. We are in discussions with the federal government about the fiscal framework within which the Mackenzie gas project would proceed. Those discussions are confidential, and we're not at liberty to talk about them.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You're not at liberty to talk about what you'd like to see.

[Randy Ottenbreit]

We're not at liberty to talk about the content of the discussions we're having with the government.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Covello, we have a number of properties available for development, but the key thing is that we're concerned about the rate of exploration for new properties. Can you elaborate on that? I think it's a significant issue in the Northwest Territories today.

[Lou Covello]

You could look at exploration as the R and D of the mining industry. Without exploration, you don't have mines, or you don't have mines to replace the mines that are in production and will eventually cease production.

In the Northwest Territories now our exploration expenditures have declined from $192 million three years ago to a projected $28 million this year. Part of that, probably about one-third, is due to the economic downturn. The rest of it is due to the inability of, in particular, junior mining companies to obtain land use permits. The reason they can't obtain land use permits is largely political. Mining companies, I think, are being used as political footballs by the various people involved in the land claims process and in the parks and protected areas processes.

I think it's going to take ten years to recover. It took that long in B.C., when the government of the day there decided to make it difficult for mining companies to explore there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll have to leave it there, Mr. Bevington. These five-minute rounds go rather quickly.

Now we're going to go to government members, and the first question is to Mr. Rickford, for five minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, witnesses.

I'm Greg Rickford, member of Parliament for the great riding of Kenora. We have some similarities. It's a big riding of more than 320,000 square feet and some Goldcorp and Placer Dome.... I mean square kilometres, not square feet. It's starting to sound like some of these southern Ontario ridings.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Covello, just another remark that all is not so great in northern Ontario. We have some real struggles with Ontario's Mining Act and some of the municipalities benefiting, like Red Lake, from one of the best gold mines in the world, quite frankly.

I want to talk a little about infrastructure, and, if I get a chance, to build on Mr. Bevington's question. Anecdotally, infrastructure has become a pretty big word. I spent the last two weekends refinishing my canoe, and I was telling one of my friends about it. He said, “I bet you can't wait to get out on the water with it”. I said, “Yes, but I don't have any of the supporting canoe infrastructure”. I was referring to paddles and a life jacket.

In all of these infrastructure announcements we're making, I want to get a little bit clearer on that. To that end, Randy, you were talking about infrastructure around camps. I was wondering if you could briefly elaborate on what you see as the federal government's role in infrastructure as far as camps are concerned, given the stakes of creating camps for mines, etc.

[Randy Ottenbreit]

Mr. Rickford, I don't think we're making any particular requests.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I realize that, but I think you can comment overall on what kinds of supporting infrastructure would be required for those.