Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon, members, witnesses and guests. This is the sixth meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Here's the agenda.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study of northern territories' economic development, in particular the barriers and solutions to those. This afternoon we welcome four important witnesses on this question.

We'll proceed, witnesses, in the order that you see on your agenda for today. We note that we're still waiting on a couple of witnesses. They will likely arrive, we expect, in the course of your deliberations. The way this normally goes—I'm sure some of you have done this before—is we'll open with a presentation of up to ten minutes from each organization, after which we'll go to questions from members.

Did you have a question, Mr. Duncan?

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

Are we expecting the other witnesses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes.

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

Okay. Otherwise, I was going to suggest they change their seating. Sorry for the interjection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

No, we are expecting them.

I'll just again suggest to the witnesses as well that they keep within the ten minutes. We'll give you a little bit of latitude but not too much. Try to keep your pace of speaking somewhat moderate. We do have the simultaneous translation occurring for both English and French. We'll be able to provide that for you.

Let's begin by welcoming Sharon Matthews, the vice-president for the assisted housing sector of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Ms. Matthews, you have the floor.

[Sharon Matthews, Vice-President, Assisted Housing Sector, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation]

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm very pleased to be here on behalf of Canada Mortgage and Housing to discuss federal housing programs and activities in the north. As Canada's national housing agency, a core part of CMHC's public policy mandate is to support affordable housing for low-income Canadians and first nations in all parts of the country, including the north.

We deliver this mandate through a number of programs. For example, through CMHC the government currently invests about $1.7 billion annually in support of almost 625,000 households living in existing social housing right across the country. Also through CMHC, the federal government provides funding for the construction of new social housing under the affordable housing initiative and for the renovation of existing homes for low-income Canadians through a suite of renovation programs.

In September 2008 the federal government announced funding of more than $1.9 billion over five years to improve and build new affordable housing and to help the homeless. As part of this investment, both the affordable housing initiative and CMHC's suite of renovation programs were renewed until March 31, 2011.

This spending supports housing such as the nine-unit seniors project built in Haines Junction in the Yukon with almost $1.8 million in federal funding through the affordable housing initiative. The project was built with input from the seniors living in the community and includes additional common space for group activities.

All of the provinces and territories cost-share and deliver the affordable housing initiative, and most cost-share and deliver the renovation programs. In addition, households in the north have benefited from the $300 million northern housing trust announced by the Government of Canada in September 2006 to respond to the need of affordable housing in the territories. This initiative has further added to the housing stock in the north.

CMHC was also instrumental in putting into operation the innovative $300 million first nations market housing fund. This fund is designed to give eligible first nation members who are living on reserve access to private market lending for home ownership similar to those living off reserve, while respecting the communal nature of land ownership on reserve.

As the committee is also aware, CMHC's been given a major role in implementing Canada's economic action plan, which includes more than $2 billion in funding for two years to build new and repair existing social housing. Of this amount, $200 million has been earmarked specifically to support the renovation and construction of housing in the three territories. This funding has been made available to the territories through mandated affordable housing agreements, although the territories are not required in this case to cost-match the federal funding.

This funding is being used, for example, to build a new children's receiving home in Whitehorse, an eight-bedroom facility that will be completed this spring. As a result of this project, children and youth under the care of Family and Children's Services in Whitehorse will soon have a quiet and safe place to live while they're in transition.

Canada's economic action plan also includes an investment of $1 billion over two years for renovations and energy retrofits of existing social housing. Most of this funding, about $850 million, is being delivered and cost-shared again by provinces and territories through amendments to existing agreements. The remaining $150 million is being delivered by CMHC to renovate and retrofit existing social housing that we directly administer.

Also included in the action plan are investments of $400 million to build new affordable housing for low-income seniors and another $75 million for new housing for people with disabilities. Again, these investments are being delivered by provinces and territories under existing agreements.

In total, close to 14% of the money to be delivered by provinces and territories under the action plan initiatives will be invested in the north. This includes the $200 million for northern housing. An additional $400 million over two years is being invested under Canada's economic action plan, specifically in housing on reserve. Projects are already under way in over 400 first nation communities as a result of this investment. CMHC is responsible for delivering about $250 million of this amount.

It is understood that there are limited construction periods in the north and remote areas, as well as a challenge associated with getting materials on site in a timely and cost-effective manner. Accordingly, when the action plan initiatives were launched this last spring, CMHC indicated it would work with each of the territories to find alternatives to the normal program requirements to help them address this particular challenge. Many of the projects in Nunavut, for example, will be using prefabricated components to permit very timely construction as well as to take advantage of some of the very latest in energy efficiency technologies.

In addition to these social housing investments in the action plan, CMHC is also administering the municipal infrastructure lending program, which is providing up to $2 billion in low-cost loans to municipalities for housing-related infrastructure. Last September, for example, the City of Whitehorse was approved for a low-cost loan of more than $1 million for a project to replace underground and roadway infrastructure. This project will also service new lots that are being developed by the city and will reduce the risk of flooding, improve the efficiency of the sewers, and provide some safer walking access to pedestrians.

So whether we're talking about the existing social housing stock, the affordable housing initiative, CMHC's suite of renovation and on-reserve programs, or the action plan, these investments in social housing are creating jobs and helping to ensure Canadians have safe, affordable, and suitable housing that meets their needs.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and hopefully I'll be able to answer any questions that you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Ms. Matthews.

Now it's the turn of Mr. Edjericon, who is Chairman of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board.

Sir, you have up to ten minutes. Go ahead; you have the floor.

[Richard Edjericon, Chairman, Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best to keep my speech to ten minutes.

My name is Richard Edjericon, and I'm the chair of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board in the Northwest Territories. The review board is one part of the environmental assessment and regulatory system that was set up under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in December 1998. It is the only environmental assessment body under the act in the Mackenzie Valley.

The review board is set up as an administrative tribunal and also as a co-management board. This means that it's made up of equal numbers of nominees from land claim organizations and governments, both territorial and federal. The structure facilitates a process that gives all potentially affected people in the Mackenzie Valley a say.

We take an objective look at exploration and development projects to see if there will be any significant impacts as a result of their activities. Each project is assessed in four main areas of impact: biophysical, social, economic, and cultural. Unique to our process, the review board also assesses the degree of public concern regarding a proposed development. Using scientific data, traditional knowledge, statements from individuals and organizations regarding potential impacts, and environmental, socio-economic, and cultural impact studies, the board does a thorough assessment of the proposed development referred to us, as is our mandate under the act.

To be referred for an environmental impact assessment, a regulatory authority, such as the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board or the National Energy Board, a federal or territorial government department, or the review board itself must decide whether the proposed development might have a significant adverse impact on the environment or cause public concern. Land claim organizations and local governments may also refer a project for environmental assessment.

After careful consideration, the board makes recommendations to mitigate development impacts so that a project can proceed without a significant impact on the environment and without causing significant public concern. The complexity of our process means that an environmental assessment can take between one to two years. We have been criticized for the length of time an assessment takes, and we have recently undertaken steps to streamline our process to reduce this time commitment.

In the event that an assessment shows that a project is likely to have a very significant impact or may cause public concern, the review board can refer it for a full environmental impact review, which is conducted by a separate independent panel that is appointed by the board.

Fewer than 5% of all proposed development projects in the Mackenzie Valley are referred for environmental assessment. Presently we have five active assessments before the board. One is nearing completion after two years. One is about to proceed, as the developer has just filed what is called a developer's assessment report, which is a detailed report by the developer of the planned project. The other three are waiting to proceed, pending receipt of the developer's assessment reports.

We are very much aware that aboriginal people in the Mackenzie Valley want jobs. I was also a former chief of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation for four years, from 1999 to 2003. At that time, unemployment was more than 80%. But five years later, with the start of the BHP Billiton diamond mines after a full environmental impact review that lasted three years, employment in my community is more than 80%. In Detah alone, about $5 million in salaries is earned annually as a result of these diamond mines.

Aboriginal people in the north are not against development, but they want to see it proceed in an environmentally responsible manner and they want to share the benefits.

Of the 5%, the review board has referred only two projects to a full environmental impact review in the 11 years since the inception of the act. One was the Mackenzie gas project, which was referred under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, with CEAA and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The other was De Beers' Gahcho Kué diamond project, which De Beers has delayed due to the recession.

All these bodies--the review board, the land and water board, and the regional panels of the land and water board--derive their authority from the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act, which in turn derives its authority from settled land claims. As such, these co-management boards are protecting the environment and at the same time are facilitating environmentally responsible development on behalf of aboriginal people and all residents of the Mackenzie Valley.

In the Mackenzie Valley, we all know about the huge environmental problems caused by Giant Mine, the legacy of which has ongoing environmental impacts.

It is in this sense of helping proposed projects proceed to environmentally sound developments that the review board is a solution for responsible development and not a barrier. There are things we can change in our process to streamline it and make it timelier, and as mentioned earlier, we have undertaken to do that. We are committed to continuing improvement in our process, and we work closely with developers, communities, and land claim organizations to ensure that our process is fair, timely, objective, and thorough.

l'd like to talk about the barriers to development in the Mackenzie Valley as we see them. All of them, in our estimation, are capacity issues that need more resources in the form of funding, staffing, or policy direction, or all three, in order to be resolved. All of them have impacts on the successful completion of fair and thorough environmental assessments, delays in which also work to delay or even deter development. I will list them in point form, with a brief explanation of each.

First is capacity to develop and complete land use plans: We have noticed that in areas where there is a land use plan in effect, there are very few referrals for environmental assessments. We get more referrals from areas without a land use plan. With a land use plan, a developer has all the rules, so to speak, about where, when, and how a development can take place. The regional land and water board can look at the land use plan and compare it the proposed development plan and issue permits or refer it for assessment. Presently there is a completed land use plan only in the Gwich'in area of the Northwest Territories. The Sahtu, Tlicho, Dehcho, and Akaitcho regions of the Mackenzie Valley currently don't have a land use plan.

Second is capacity to collect baseline biophysical, social, and cultural data, or to do cumulative effects monitoring by independent or government researchers.

I'm just going to point them out.

Third is capacity to document traditional knowledge.

Fourth is the capacity of the federal government to consider review board decisions and conduct a “consult to modify” process.

That's it, Mr. Chairman. I can get into the details later if I am asked.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Edjericon.

Now we would like to welcome Paul Quassa, vice-chair, and Marg Epp, senior finance officer, each from Nunavut Planning Commission. It's great to have you with us here this afternoon. As you probably have gathered by now, we start with a ten-minute presentation, and we'll do that. We'll have one more witness presentation after yours, and then we'll proceed to questions from members.

Mr. Quassa, please proceed.

[Paul Quassa, Vice-Chair, Nunavut Planning Commission]

[Witness speaks in Inuktitut]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. We will present a few highlights from the brief previously submitted to you.

The Nunavut Planning Commission, or NPC, is an institution of public government established under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, to which some of you may know I am a signatory. The commission has the primary responsibility to prepare and implement a land use plan that guides and directs resource use and development in the Nunavut settlement area. This single land use plan will be a significant milestone in the management of lands for the Nunavut settlement area.

The creation of a Nunavut land use plan, as mandated in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, is one of the major determinants that would encourage northern economic development by supporting industry to invest and explore in Nunavut. Nunavut will be the only territory in Canada where land use is administered under a single land use plan. This will enable industry and other land users to strategically plan their investment in Nunavut in a timely manner, and design their project proposals in accordance with the guidelines in the Nunavut land use plan.

The second component to this is the pending Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. This act will clarify procedural questions related to the formulation and implementation of land use plans and environmental assessments. Proponents will have certainty with the one-window approach, and the process timeline is clear with all regulatory agencies.

Nunavut territory has a unique situation and an environment that has no comparison to the rest of Canada. It is an area of Canada with a high potential opportunity for resource development, but few means of getting it out. The introduction of the Nunavut land use plan and the pending legislation to implement it create a welcoming environment for industry to invest in Nunavut. With the investment of big industry come the spinoff businesses, training, and education opportunities that will help sustain local economies.

I will hand it to Marg.

[Marg Epp, Senior Finance Officer, Nunavut Planning Commission]

Thank you, Paul, and Mr. Chair.

The isolation of Nunavut's communities creates many barriers for the emergence and sustainability of small business. A lack of capacity, both in terms of human resources and infrastructure, threatens the viability and sustainability of small business. The lack of buildings and of the capital to erect those buildings limits business start-ups and business growth.

Markets are limited due to the lack of infrastructure to bring products to a larger audience. Freight costs are prohibitive to profit margins. An absence of roads and deep-sea ports impairs opportunities to reduce shipping costs in both directions. The acquisition of the inventory required for business is triple the cost of doing business in southern Canada. Barging in goods restricts you to the small window of our shipping season, and often causes expensive delays and lost contracts.

Energy costs are one of the highest cost components of any business and of living in the north. Renewable energy sources need to be developed to reduce the costs of living and doing business in Nunavut. There is a shortage of human resources in the north as well. The Government of Nunavut is the largest employer of skilled labour. It is difficult for business to compete with that. Not every community can provide training facilities and/or courses required to fill the demand for the various skilled labour positions.

Taking the appropriate training means being away from your family and community for extended periods of time. This is not always feasible. Professional business and support services are also not readily available. Many communities do not even have banking services. Nunavut is still very young in terms of an established business community. Learning to navigate business procedures and other government requirements, often coupled with a language barrier, can be daunting to any potential business owner.

These are just a few of the issues. We've expanded on these and more in the brief previously submitted. Nunavut still needs to build capacity and create infrastructure before sustainable growth can take place. The pending land use plan and the NUPPAA legislation to implement it will clarify the procedures and streamline the process of how land use will be managed. This will create a welcoming environment for industry to invest in. This will not alleviate all of the barriers; however, partnering small business with industry can have positive results for both parties.

[Paul Quassa]

For the Nunavut Planning Commission to be successful in the implementation of the new legislation or the draft legislation that is coming about, NUPPAA for short, and the Nunavut land use plan, additional financial and human resources capacity is required.

For example, a public registry will need to be developed, implemented, and maintained. This will require additional technical staff, a new database program, and considerable financial resources. Our core funding is still based on the 1993 level, with only FDDIPI adjustments. These do not even cover our cost of living increases.

The commission needs government to address the financial deficiencies with the funding allocation from the federal government.

Nunavut is on the edge of an exciting new era of resource and economic development. All levels of government, industry, local communities, and entrepreneurs have a vital role in partnering to ensure that we create advantages in the changing legal and political environments.

Again the commission thanks you for the opportunity to appear here today. We look forward to answering any questions this committee may have.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Quassa and Ms. Epp.

Lastly, I want to welcome Mr. Overvold and Ms. Heidi Wiebe.

Mr. Robert Overvold is a board member and Ms. Wiebe a senior planner with the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board.

We welcome you here. We understand we weren't able to connect when we were in the territory in November, so we're delighted that you could make the time to join us today.

Please go ahead with your presentation.

[Robert Overvold, Member, Sahtu Land Use Planning Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I would just like to make an observation to start. I noticed, sitting around this table, that I'm the only male not wearing a tie. It's not that I don't own one; I just forgot it in my hotel room this morning. I was thinking of running to my MP's office and borrowing one, but alas, it didn't happen. I apologize for that.

[An hon. member]

Would you like mine?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Overvold]

My name is Bob Overvold, and I'm a member of the Sahtu Land Use Planning Board. We will be presenting on behalf of our chair, who was supposed to come down here but unfortunately had to cancel because of illness. She sends her regrets.

I am here today with Heidi Wiebe, our senior planner. Again, thanks for inviting us to participate in today's panel discussion on the barriers and solutions for economic development in Canada's northern territories.

We believe that land use planning is part of the solution. The Sahtu Land Use Planning Board has three key messages to share and leave with you today.

First, a completed and approved Sahtu land use plan will increase regulatory certainty and consistency by clearly defining where development is appropriate, and under what conditions, at the start of the process. In fact, I would go further, to say that to attempt to achieve an efficient regulatory regime without a land use plan in place is to my mind probably impossible.

Second, completion and approval of the Sahtu land use plan will promote the economic well-being of residents and communities as they define it, while protecting their social and cultural values as well.

Third, very similar to the point of my colleague Paul, if the board gets the funding it has requested this year, then we will complete the Sahtu land use plan by the end of March next year.

We commend your committee’s focus on advancing the economic prosperity of northerners and addressing the challenges they face in promoting their economic well-being, as stated in your October 30, 2009, news release.

The planning board is similarly mandated to develop a land use plan that protects and promotes the social, cultural, and economic well-being of residents and communities in the Sahtu settlement area, having regard to the interests of all Canadians. The Sahtu land claim agreement requires active participation of residents and communities and requires the board to devote special attention to the rights of participants under their land claim and to the lands used by them for wildlife harvesting and other resource use.

Planning decisions are driven first and foremost by communities. The plan serves to inform everyone else about community values so that development can proceed in a manner that respects those values and benefits northerners. Communities require economic development to provide revenues and jobs. They want to encourage development that will promote their economic well-being outside of their most important areas.

The planning board works with communities to identify development opportunities and constraints and to find ways to maximize those opportunities and the benefits for communities, while protecting the values they have identified.

Finding the right balance between the level of conservation and development is key. Finding that balance is the biggest challenge of any planning process. Ultimately, the balance must reflect community input regarding where and how development is most appropriately carried out.

Development that occurs in accordance with an approved land use plan will promote the social, cultural, and economic well-being of residents and communities of the settlement area, as well as of other Canadians.

Many reports have been written about the challenges of the northern regulatory system. Key among these challenges is the broad uncertainty about where development is acceptable in general. There is the central question that land use plans must address what types of development are appropriate, where, and under what conditions.

We do this through a system of zoning and conditions. Conservation zones protect the most significant cultural and ecological areas and are closed to development. Special management zones protect specific values. By that I mean, for example, that there may be an important woodland caribou calving area, and while the area may be open for development, the developers must take a special look at that condition, that value, and see how they could proceed with their development and still protect that value.

Special management zones protect specific values through broad conditions while allowing development to proceed. All other areas are considered “general use”, where development may proceed subject to existing regulatory requirements. In the absence of land use plans, these zoning decisions are transferred to other parts of the regulatory system, such as environmental assessment and permitting—and Richard is part of that regime, the environmental review board—that were not designed to answer such questions. As a result, without a land use plan in place, in our view the whole system bogs down.

In the 2005 NWT environmental audit, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board indicated that many environmental assessments are either being triggered or their complexity increased by the absence of land use plans.

Once the Sahtu land use plan is completed and approved, developers will know where they can and can’t go and what values they need to pay special attention to in preparing their applications. This knowledge will allow them to make informed decisions about where to focus their efforts and develop their projects in a way that respects local values. With applications designed better and in accordance with an approved plan, regulators will be able to focus on what their main job is. They'll be able to focus on project-specific questions and carry out their processes with greater efficiency.

Several reports have reached this same conclusion and have recommended the immediate completion of land use plans in northern Canada. I mentioned the Auditor General’s report, the 2005 NWT environmental audit, Neil McCrank's report, and most recently the joint review panel’s report on the Mackenzie gas project. All have indicated the need for completing land use planning north of sixty.

With all the benefits of a land use plan, one might wonder why this critical document is not yet complete. In our case, in the past the Sahtu land use plan had numerous challenges including loss of board quorum over different years, significant under-funding, and loss of staff. The board has had to advance the process slowly as funding was made available and staff could be hired. Over the last two years the Sahtu land use planning board has developed into a fully functional planning organization with full board appointments, qualified staff, and sufficient funding to advance the plan.

The board has made considerable progress during this time and will be putting out a new draft shortly—by the end of May of this year. If we get continued funding, as we have requested this year, the board is confident, and I stress “confident”, that we can complete the Sahtu land use plan by the spring of 2011, in one more year's time.

Once complete, the plan will be submitted for approval to the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and INAC on behalf of the Government of Canada. The plan comes into effect the day it is approved by the minister of INAC. However, our funding is not yet guaranteed this year, and without it we cannot complete the Sahtu land use plan.

The board is at a critical junction in its history. When our current board members were appointed two years ago, and I was one of them, they committed to completing the plan within our terms, and we each have two-year terms. We are on schedule to meet that target and have received very positive comments from the communities, government, and industry about our work to revise the plan so far. We are committed to completing this important process and filling this large gap in the Sahtu regulatory regime.

In conclusion, we believe that a completed and approved Sahtu land use plan will fill a critical gap in the regulatory system that will allow other components to run more efficiently. It will not only benefit industry and regulators by providing certainty, but will also benefit the residents and communities by encouraging development that meets their needs. Assuming that the board continues to be funded this coming year, we anticipate completing the Sahtu land use plan and submitting it for approval within one year.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to present to you today. We are happy to answer any questions you or your committee members may have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Overvold. I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. We will now go to questions from members.

I have Mr. Bagnell down for the first question. Mr. Bagnell, go ahead for seven minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you all for coming. It's a great help for us.

Ms. Matthews, you noted the $300 million northern housing trust announced in 2006. Can you tell me when that ended, when the expiry date was for spending that money?

[Sharon Matthews]

The $300 million was actually administered through the Department of Finance, not through CMHC. My understanding was that the money was transferred that year and that the different territories had the opportunity to spend it over time. I do believe that most of it has now been spent.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Seeing that it was mentioned in your speech, do you know if there is a follow-up to that? Now that it's been spent, is there a new round of $300 million, or what is replacing it?

[Sharon Matthews]

That's something you would have to ask the Department of Finance, I'm afraid. It would not be something that CMHC would be dealing with. In my remarks, I was trying to cover the different funding that had gone to housing.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay.

I'll move on to land use planning. I assume everyone here and every witness we've had before and everyone we will have, and anyone listening, thinks that completed land use planning is a huge asset to help economic development. If there's anyone listening, here or anywhere, who does not think that's true, let me know, but I assume that's true and I assume you think that's true.

Therefore, I'd like to ask Richard, for one, had land use planning been available in all of the various regions along the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route, would your evaluation process not have taken so long with all of the complaints it received?

My second question is for all of the land use planning people: Paul, Robert, Marg, Richard, everyone. Our study is on the barriers and solutions to economic development, so from a federal government perspective what barriers are in place, if any, prohibiting you from reaching completed land use plans as quickly as possible, for all the great reasons you mentioned we need them? What would you recommend that the federal government do to help those along?

That will probably take up all of my time once everyone answers.

[Richard Edjericon]

Thank you. I will do my best to answer that question.

On the land use plans in the Northwest Territories, the way I see it right now, we have one that's completed. That's basically in the Gwich'in territory. So when developers come in to do projects, they will go into the Gwich'in area. They'll go to their offices and make an application, but at least developers have an opportunity to take a look at what the rules are going to be in that jurisdiction. It makes it easier for developers. I guess it gives them a certainty about what is needed for them to make application, to follow through and that kind of thing. In the Northwest Territories, as part of Neil McCrank's recommendations he did make a recommendation that the land use plans be completed in the Mackenzie Valley. If these things get done, I think it gives certainty to developers and everybody out there.

But most importantly, right now the communities have capacity issues. Right now a lot of people in the communities don't have moneys to process applications or even go through it, so that's a capacity issue that they're also facing at the local level. I'm hoping, as part of the regulatory initiative announcement coming out—I don't know when it's going to come out, but I'm hoping this spring—that this is something they're going to take a look at, and put money towards land use planning in the Northwest Territories and the Mackenzie Valley. By doing that, it definitely will help the capacity issues at the local level as well.

I'm hoping that answers your question.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay.