Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 16th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, that's perfectly all right by me.

I guess we'll have Mr. Payne, and then we'll go Mr. Pomerleau.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'm glad I'm senior.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Anyway, I will share whatever time I have with my colleague, Mr. John Weston.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming. It's very nice to see some folks here who are really interested in the development of the north. I really only have one question, so I'll give everyone a shot at responding to this.

In your view, what is the single biggest issue over which the federal government has jurisdiction that stands either as an impediment or as a potential benefit to resource development in the north?

Whoever wants to start....

[Mike Peters]

I'll take a first crack at it.

I think the answer, once again, is the regulatory environment. Certainly in the Northwest Territories, where a good chunk of our industry is located right now, the federal government still has jurisdiction and there is a range of opportunities for what it can do in terms of looking not just at federal legislation, but also at federal policy. If you look through some of the recommendations from the McCrank report, there are lots of opportunities to provide clarity in terms of policy, extra guidance, and what the expectations are for operators up there.

So I would say that the regulatory environment is one thing where the federal government is well positioned in the Northwest Territories.

[Scott Kent]

I think for the Yukon it would be support for infrastructure development. That could be for any number of things, from the regulatory environment I mentioned for the Alaska Highway pipeline to work with the Alaskan and U.S. governments to fund the rail, and the issues Claire talked about in support of some of the secondary roads, as far as roads to resources are concerned.

So I think that would be the one area. It's three-pronged, but there are a number of different ways the federal government could participate without cost in some cases, and cost in others.

[Randy Ottenbreit]

I would echo Mr. Peters' comment with respect to follow-up on the regulatory recommendations made in the McCrank report. Those recommendations are broad in scope, encompassing surface rights legislation and the need to complete land use planning, etc. So we are, as mentioned by Pamela Strand, looking forward to the government's response to the McCrank report, given the breadth of matters addressed in his report.

[Lou Covello]

In Nunavut, I would say the most effective use of the federal presence is in infrastructure development. In the Northwest Territories, again, it comes back to the regulatory environment. There, the feds have the greatest ability to either expedite the process or act as an impediment to development.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

Is there any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, you have about two minutes.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

You come from one of the largest and most magnificent regions in the world. You have travelled a long way to come here, and we thank you for that.

I wonder if you could go back decades and reflect on Thomas Berger's commission, which originally nixed this very project. What one thing in his report would you say is your greatest concern today?

Alaska is doing another huge pipeline that I believe Sarah Palin has been very instrumental in getting going. I wonder how that competes with your project.

[Randy Ottenbreit]

With respect to Justice Berger's report, going back to the 1970s, the essence of his recommendations was that the north was not ready for development. I would say a lot of the same people who made those recommendations to Justice Berger are of the view that it's now ready.

In January of 2000, aboriginal leaders got together in a community called Fort Liard and passed a resolution essentially saying they wanted to be part of the future development of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Aboriginal people are in fact part of the development through their participation in the Aboriginal Pipeline Group.

So I would say the big change has been that the people in the north who previously said they weren't ready now want to be part of development. I think that's the biggest change. That's a fundamental change in the attitude of the north: they want development, and they want to derive benefits from it. That's why we spent a lot of time developing benefit agreements with them.

With respect to the development of the Alaska pipeline, Imperial Oil is not part of that. I guess we would have to see how it unfolds. It's probably a little bit early to see what impact it would have. If those developments did occur at the same time, it would raise concerns as to whether there was sufficient capacity for pipelining and what not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Weston and Mr. Ottenbreit.

And now we go to Mr. Pomerleau, member for the riding of Drummond.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for having come to meet with us here today. When I arrived earlier, I thought I heard Mr. Kent refer to chapter 11. I imagine that he was referring to chapter 11 of NAFTA.

If that was indeed the case, to what extent can the application of chapter 11 of NAFTA help or hinder mining and gas development in the north?

[Scott Kent]

No. Actually, I was talking about chapter 11 of the umbrella final agreement, which is our land claims agreement. That's the land use planning chapter in that agreement.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Fine, thank you.

Ms. Derome, you are certainly aware of the flow-through funding that exists in Quebec. Do you think that the use of flow-through funding in the rest of the far north, at the same level that exists in Quebec currently, would help in mining and gas development, especially mining?

[Claire Derome]

As I said earlier, the north does not have the capacity to offer any specific incentives for mining exploration. So I think that anyone who does prospecting in the north would be very pleased to see action taken in this regard by the federal government to allow for improved flow-through funding for mining exploration north of the 60^th parallel.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay, but it should come from the federal government because...?

[Claire Derome]

Because we do not have the capacity to do so in the north. There are 34,000 people who live in the Yukon, perhaps 15,000 of whom pay taxes. We are therefore unable to amass the millions of dollars required for exploration. This year in the Yukon, investment in exploration and development will exceed $220 million.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Fine.

My other question goes to Mr. Peters.

[Claire Derome]

I think that Ms. Strand would just like to finish.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay, go ahead.

[Pamela Strand]

Maybe there is a way. Since we raise our investment dollars from the south because of the incapacity of the population in the north, could the committee or the federal government look at incentives, so that the money is spent in the north, some flow-through top-up? I don't know whether interboundary laws will permit it, but maybe some consideration could be given to that.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Maybe a third question, Mr. Peters.

I believe that you said, and I may have misunderstood, that there would probably never be two pipelines built in the far north, but that one certainly would be. It may have been Mr. Kent who referred to this. I want to know if I understood correctly that it is whoever begins first that will determine where the pipeline will be built, in Alaska or on Canadian territory. Is that correct?

[Mike Peters]

No. I'm sorry, I did not say that. In the case of the two pipelines, my answer is as follows:

Let the markets decide. It will be the proponents who will be able to best judge that and what the market realities are for the product.