Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's a fierce animal, isn't it?

[Gilbert Cazon]

It's a fierce animal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's a good name.

All right. We are now going to questions from members. The way this works--some of you have probably been in front of standing committees before--is that we go in a predetermined order. Members from each of the parties represented here will ask questions. We allow five minutes for both the question and the answer, so we encourage both members and witnesses to keep the questions and answers succinct and we get through more material in the time that we have available to us.

Again, I'll try to remind you as we get close to time, so that you can wrap up and summarize and we'll stay to our time limits.

We'll begin the first round, five minutes, with Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Merci, Monsieur le président.

Thank you all for being here. It is a great honour to be on the traditional territory of the Dehcho people.

Mr. Kearney, because you're on PDAC and MAC you're in a perfect position to answer my first question.

I know they have a whole bunch of issues, and I support them and work with them, so I know what those are, but I'm curious as to what issues in mining may be different in the three territories from those in the provinces. A certain tax break may be more important or a certain thing may be important. Is there any difference, anything that's unique to the north, that we should emphasize?

[John F. Kearney]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Bagnell.

I believe there certainly are significant differences between the territories and the provinces and indeed between the territories themselves. The difference, I would suggest, is primarily in the regulatory regime. The issue of taxation is not the main difference, not the main priority. The main difference is in the permitting regime.

As you are well aware, I believe, the regime in both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut is different from that in your own territory of the Yukon, and of course we're into the devolution question there. But in the Northwest Territories we have the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the entire process this creates, which is a product of the land claims settlement agreements. So you have legislation enacted by Parliament based on an underlying agreement between Canada and the territory and the affected first nations. Not all the Northwest Territories, of course, are settled, but it's still the governing legislation.

We don't have these issues in the provinces. The regulation in the provinces is by and large driven by the provincial governments and the federal government. You've got a different layer in the Northwest Territories.

The major challenge for the mining industry, in the north particularly, is the regulatory regime and the land access issues. There are land access issues in the provinces as well, but it's more significant in the north because a lot of settlements have not been reached. And frankly, the north has more potential.

The mining industry is a mature industry in Canada. There's a phrase, the easy mines have been found. The ones that have access to infrastructure have all been found, developed, and mined out. The new resources to be found are in the north of three provinces, three territories. And that is, if you like, the long-term future for the Canadian mining industry.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have some more questions I won't get through in my five minutes. Maybe I'll ask my last three and perhaps I can get short answers.

Mr. Balsillie, on the permitting, the Mackenzie Valley, although it's a bigger project, has been going for four years, and they're still not finished. I'm not sure how you think you're going to get through the permitting process in the summer of 2010.

My second question is for anyone who wants to answer. Is the federal part of the appointment process efficient? Are federal appointments being made in time?

My last question is for Mr. Wilson and Mr. Cazon. You suggested we get on with land claims. What can the federal government do? Mr. Cazon, you said you're in the middle of Dehcho territory. Does it matter that the land claim is not settled, and what could the federal government do to settle it?

I'll start with Donald.

[Donald Balsillie]

Thank you.

We've been in the permitting process since March of 2007. So we've been in there a fair amount of time. We're looking at 2010 to have an approval.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Can anyone comment on the federal appointments?

[John F. Kearney]

There has been significant improvement in the federal appointments recently. Positions have been filled.

Frankly, we would suggest there are probably too many boards--that's another issue. But there are too many boards, and there's a capacity issue in finding the appropriately qualified people who have the time and who wish to sit on the board. The theory is fine, but the practice is difficult. It is difficult to get board members.

There has been significant improvement recently.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Wilson and Mr. Cazon, on the Dehcho claim.

[Hugh Wilson]

On the land claims, it's been proven that having a land claim doesn't mean everything is going be better, but it makes it easier.

As a case in point, the Nunavut land claims agreement makes it easier to work in Nunavut. As a case in point, in the area where we are working with the Akaitcho, if the Akaitcho land claim agreement were in place, it would be easier and more expeditious to move projects through their organizations. And I think that's the main focus.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Cazon.

[Gilbert Cazon]

In Fort Simpson we're still negotiating with the federal government on our claim. We're having problems with what's on the table, so I really can't comment about what's on the table. But we are in negotiations with the federal government. I'll just leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Cazon, all the witnesses, and Mr. Bagnell.

We'll now go to Mr. Lévesque for the second question.

You have five minutes, sir.

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

Good day, gentlemen.

I am from northwestern Quebec. Our region is home to a number of mines. However, there are not many outstanding land claims, since most have been settled, with the exception of the Algonquin claim. Osisko applied for and obtained a permit last year. The environmental impact assessment took more than one year. There are numerous steps in the process.

The situation is not the same for a province and a territory. When you negotiate operating or research conditions, you do so of course with first nations. However, with respect to royalties, the environment and so forth, do you negotiate with the NWT government or with the federal government?

[John F. Kearney]

First of all, I'm very familiar with northern Quebec. In a previous company, I operated in the Chibougamau area for quite a number of years. The situation with the Cree of northern Quebec is a good example of progress that has been made in the provinces that needs to be made in the territories. We have invited the current Grand Chief of the Cree to come to the Northwest Territories to meet the Dehcho first nations to provide some guidance and advice based on how the Cree have been as successful as they have been. As you're well aware, they have been very successful, and there's a good relationship between the Cree and the mining companies in northern Quebec.

In the Northwest Territories, the permits are issued by the review board and by the water board following review by the review board. The territory has very little say. The territorial government has responsibility for certain aspects, but the main negotiations, if you like to call them that, take place with the first nations and with the federal government. Ultimately, the mining permits are issued by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There has not been devolution of that authority yet to the province in the Northwest Territories, as there has been in the Yukon. And that's an area of significant contention for revenue sharing between the territorial government and the first nations. We have to try to keep everybody in the loop and talk to everybody, and we do talk to everybody.

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

If, administratively speaking, the NWT government had the same powers as a provincial government with respect to natural resources and land management, do you think that agreements could be negotiated faster with first nations? With respect to research, operations and environmental assessments, would having the same powers reduce program duplication and the amount of time required to negotiate regional agreements?

[John F. Kearney]

I think from the mining company's point of view, if there was only one level of government, it would naturally be easier. But I think one of the messages that we tried to communicate to the committee today is the necessity for political support for development. That is the simple message, that development is important. Because if there's no message, no pro-development message, then the negative messages, the anti-messages, the environmental-concern messages--which are legitimate--tend to dominate. So there needs to be a pro-development message given by somebody.

Right now we would suggest that's falling down in the Northwest Territories, because the federal government has multiple responsibilities--regulation, first nations, and development--and the territorial government is not really responsible. So it's falling down between the two.

I couldn't or wouldn't comment on whether first nations negotiations would be better with the territorial government than with the federal government. Perhaps Gilbert could address that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

I would also like to thank the witnesses.

We will now go to Mr. Bevington.

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

Mr. Balsillie had a comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Do you have a short response?

[Donald Balsillie]

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, go ahead.

[Donald Balsillie]

Just with reference to the questions that were asked, our region here, the Akaitcho region, is currently in negotiations with the federal and territorial government, under their process of the implementation of the treaty. We signed a framework agreement in 2000; it's been almost ten years, and we haven't gone beyond that. We signed a treaty in 1900; it's 110 years coming up. So you can tell that these things take time.

But in today's society, if we were to speed these things up, I think the cloud of uncertainty--if you want to call it that--in the north, in terms of accessibility to resource development, who makes the decisions, who do we go to see with reference to impact benefit agreements, what's the playing field.... If people knew the rules and the road map, it would be a lot quicker and fewer costs would be associated with that, etc.

So I think there's a necessity for the federal institution to ensure that these processes of negotiations don't drag on for 10, 20, or 30 years. In 1974 the Paulette case directed the parties to negotiate, and it's been too long, too long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, your message is taken.

Mr. Cazon, I think you wanted to add a point here as well.