Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Jan. 27th, 2014

[Chief Harry Deneron]

Let me first explain that we live so close to the B.C. border that 80% of our job needs come from northern B.C. development. It's not very hard to see, because when you fly out of Fort Liard, once you clear the treetops you see a bunch of lights to the south, and that's the border. North of that border, there are no lights.

I believe this is the reason we're here today. I don't think gas and oil stop at the border. I believe there is gas north of the border too. If it's not a safe place to invest for those developers, they're not going to come here. I think that's more the reason we're here today.

Most recently, we're working with the minister's office with regard to gas and oil. Amoco Canada used to own the Pointed Mountain gas fields. When they left, there was nothing left. Those lands were assigned to Amoco in 1970. We lived with gas and oil development in our area. When Amoco was there, there was no IBA in place. There was nothing. We did not benefit from that development. We got nothing.

Today, working with the minister's office on gas and oil, the different oil companies made plans to go back there and explore some of those old wells. Today we have kind of agreed with the minister that the different oil companies should take over those leases for 21 years.

The word from the company is that there are 13 trillion feet of recoverable shale gas in that area from that one parcel, so that's a pretty bright outlook for us if we can go in there with a new devolution team and maybe explore that area. On that basis, I think our future looks pretty bright.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Gentlemen, we want to thank you for your time before us today.

Ms. Jones allocated her time so that testimony could continue, so we thank Ms. Jones for that.

Gentlemen, we do thank you for coming here, for answering questions, and more importantly, for bringing your testimony to our committee.

We'll now suspend for a short break, colleagues. We'll return in about 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll call our meeting back to order.

I didn't warn the witnesses before we broke, but we do have some changes to the list. The groups that will be represented include the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines. We also have representatives from the Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce and from the Northern Territories Federation of Labour.

I do want to thank you all for being with us today. We certainly appreciate your willingness to take time out of your busy day in order to join us.

We'll begin with representation from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines. We have Tom Hoefer, who is the general director, as well as Michael Hardin.

Thank you for joining us. We'll turn it over to you, gentlemen, for your opening statement.

[Tom Hoefer, Executive Director, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and the folks here. My name is Tom Hoefer. I'm the executive director of the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines.

We are an industry association and champions for mining in the two territories. Our review of Bill C-15 was also done collectively with our sister national organizations, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, and the Mining Association of Canada.

I'm joined by our legal counsel, Michael Hardin, who has helped us with our submissions and who has a wealth of northern regulatory knowledge, having worked with us for over 20 years.

We would like to start by thanking the minister of AANDC and his staff for their consultations with us and for the very detailed response to our concerns. Although we did not get everything we were hoping for in Bill C-15, we are thankful for the improvements being proposed and for the minister's assurances of our continued involvement in the regulatory improvement process.

We have submitted to you a detailed brief, and I will now take you through the deck that we also provided in advance.

Turning to slide 2, we have a number of key messages. Our minerals industry is the foundation of the NWT economy. We support the devolution of land and resources to the new landlord, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and our interest in Bill C-15 will focus on regulatory improvement, specifically amendments to the MVRMA.

There has been a significant decline in exploration spending. We are encouraged by amendments to the MVRMA that can help turn this around, but more amendments are needed, especially with respect to unwarranted referrals of small exploration projects to environmental assessment. Therefore we believe that more changes are required to create certainty again for investors.

I'll turn to slide 3 to introduce the importance of our industry. Over the past 80 years the value of NWT mineral production has exceeded $60 billion.

In the next slide you will see that mining is the biggest business in the Northwest Territories. We're the largest single private-sector contributor to the economy, and we add even further benefits through construction, transportation, and real estate.

In the next slide, mining creates huge value for the NWT as data from Natural Resources Canada demonstrates. As you can see, the value of NWT mining production is many times greater than that of Nunavut and the Yukon.

In fact in the next slide you can see that we're globally significant. Our diamond mines have established the Northwest Territories and Canada as the third most valuable producer in the world.

In the next slide you will see that our mines turn that production value into benefits for the NWT and Canada, and for aboriginal and northern residents and businesses. For detail beyond the figures shown here, I encourage you to download from our website the publication “Measuring Success”. There's a picture of the cover shown on that slide.

The next slide shows the unfortunate reality that no mine lasts forever. This chart shows the current lives of our NWT mines. While we are hopeful that their owners may be able to find ways to extend them in the future, there is no guarantee of this. Importantly since discovering and permitting a mine is a 10-year-plus process, we need to be attracting a constant flow of exploration investment annually. This is where the dilemma lies.

The next slide shows the annual exploration spending. I draw your attention to the Northwest Territories in blue. Note how it declines and essentially flatlines compared to our neighbours. Note how successful Nunavut and the Yukon have been in attracting investments over the same time period. Since our mineral potential is at least equal to that of our neighbours, we know something is structurally wrong here in the Northwest Territories.

Let me emphasize that in the next slide, which reveals a steady decline in the NWT's competitiveness and our loss of Canadian market share. Let me note too that the small uptick projected for 2013 is not due to an increase in exploration but is rather due to investment in just a very few of our advanced projects.

Why, you will ask, have exploration dollars fled the Northwest Territories? The next slide gives two principal reasons. First is the uncertainty caused by unsettled land claims in two of the most prospective parts of the territories, namely the Akaitcho region and the Dehcho region.

The second reason is the complex, costly, and unpredictable nature of the regulatory process under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. For these reasons, we continue to emphasize the urgency of quickly settling land claims. We also look to devolution to play an important role, particularly with the NWT government's launch and implementation of its first-ever NWT mineral development strategy. We are also hopeful that the amendments to the MVRMA proposed in Bill C-15 will be seen by investors as a step in the right direction.

However, we respectfully submit that the Bill C-15 reforms will not achieve the full turnaround that is needed without additional key amendments to the MVRMA beyond those in the current bill.

The next slide shows our many attempts to get regulatory improvements to the MVRMA just over the past six years. During the same period, we watched the steady decline of investment in the Northwest Territories. If we are to sustain the great benefits our industry is providing, we must seek improvements in the MVRMA to rejuvenate exploration investment. We're hopeful that following our submission today, the committee will help drive that point home and get additional changes made.

Let me speak now to the important changes that we support in Bill C-15, as shown on the next slide. Overall, we are happy to see definitive timelines. However, there is one proviso to this, which I will speak to when we reach the next slide.

We also support the expanded ministerial authority to issue policy directions to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. As well, we're happy to see that there is a clear mechanism included to authorize changes to the new development certificates without the need for a project to undergo a new environmental assessment.

Amalgamation of land and water boards has attracted considerable commentary. We recognize that the aboriginal community is validly concerned by the loss of the existing regional panels. You should know that a number of industry members, especially those who have developed close working relationships with the regional boards, have likewise expressed reservations.

On balance, we support the amalgamation proposal provided that it does not negate the existing working relationships that applicants and licence holders have developed with the regional board panels, that the amalgamated board maintains a strong regional presence, and that the board chair is authorized to appoint a representative from the settled land claim area that hosts the project under review. We're encouraged that the minister has indicated that AANDC will take this into consideration.

I will turn now to our final slide. We believe that further reform to the bill is needed in five key areas.

First is the unwarranted referral of the small exploration projects to environmental assessment. Mineral investors repeatedly identify the risk of an unwarranted referral as the number one reason to vote with their feet and invest elsewhere. These referrals are frequently made on the basis of public concern, an important term that is not defined anywhere in the act. Therefore, we recommend that the MVRMA set down clear and consistent standards for referring any development proposal to environmental assessment, especially those for small preliminary exploration programs. Unless that fundamental change is made, we fear that exploration spending in the NWT will continue to fall behind activity in competing regions.

The second area for reform relates to the need for proportionality in environmental assessments and the importance of ensuring a balance between environmental and economic objectives throughout the regulatory regime. With respect to proportionality, we have suggested a change to the MVRMA to establish that the scope and intensity of the process be scaled according to the potential adverse impacts of the projects in question. In the same section, we have proposed an amendment that expressly acknowledges the need to balance environmental and economic objectives and priorities.

Our third recommendation relates to timeframes. We support the approximate two-year timeframe for an environmental review. However, the proposed bill carries a real risk where a project nears the end of a two-year environmental assessment process and is then bumped to another conceivably two-year environmental impact review process. The result could be a two-plus-two, or a four-year review process. While the bill does allow for information from an EA to be considered in an EIR, there is no guarantee that this will occur. We recommend, therefore, that the act be amended so that the total time for an EA-to-EIR process is two years. Otherwise, it drives the unintended consequence of proponents demanding at the outset the highest level of review, an EIR, to guarantee them a two-year timeframe.

Our fourth concern is around aboriginal consultation. In November 2012, AANDC's minister indicated that the MVRMA would be amended to clarify the roles and responsibilities related to aboriginal consultation. However, Bill C-15 includes only a preliminary step in this direction, namely, a provision to enact regulations for this critically important area. While we are pleased that AANDC is committed to involving our industry in the development of these regulations, we believe their creation will take some time. We recommend, therefore, that consideration be given to using the expanded ministerial powers to issue policy directions to more quickly bring greater clarity and certainty to this area.

Our final concern is with the proposed cost-recovery regulations. The NWT is already one of the highest-cost jurisdictions in the land. Therefore, we urge a cautionary approach to minimize killing the goose that lays the golden egg by imposing burdensome financial requirements that will be another deterrent to investment in the NWT. We do look forward to contributing to the development and review of these regulations, or in fact, the decision to postpone putting them into place.

That brings us to the end of our presentation. Thank you for your attention to our comments.

My colleague Mike Hardin and I would be glad to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to you, Mr. Stanzell and Mr. Bradshaw, for your opening statement. You represent the chamber of commerce. Thanks so much for being here.

[Allen Stanzell, First Vice-President, Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce]

Mr. Chair, and committee members, thank you for coming to Yellowknife and providing us with an opportunity to speak with you today.

The NWT Chamber of Commerce is the largest business organization north of 60 and we've long been a champion of devolution. We firmly believe the closer the authority is to the affected jurisdiction, the better the overall decision-making in the interests of that jurisdiction. As part of our preparation for this address, we polled our members to get a collective opinion regarding our position. With few exceptions, our members of the chamber network from Hay River to Inuvik support the points we wish to leave with you today.

First and foremost, the business community of the Northwest Territories supports the legislation as a whole and wishes to congratulate the federal and our aboriginal and territorial governments for their hard work and foresight in moving related agreements and this legislation forward. Is Bill C-15 perfect? No. Nothing visionary is ever perfect. In our view Bill C-15 is indicative of the vision shared by the people of the NWT.

To reinforce that statement I wish to refer to a poll conducted in early March 2013. The research was commissioned by an independent third party and conducted by an independent research firm. The methodology included interviews with 400 NWT adults balanced between larger centres and small communities. The key finding of that research was that nearly 7 in 10 respondents were either in favour of the devolution agreement or not opposed to it, while fewer than 2 in 10 were opposed. Clearly devolution of resource land and water authorities is a vision shared not just by the NWT business community but also by the vast majority of NWT residents.

We know some groups would have us roll back the hands of time and leave things as they were. While we respect their voice and thank them for their contribution, we disagree. We believe it's time for the NWT to make meaningful progress towards its maturity as a larger, more important contributor to the nation that is Canada.

We support the overarching intent and spirit of proposed amendments to the MVRMA and believe they are a positive step toward development and resource management in the NWT. We also believe there is more work to be done and challenges to be addressed. The NWT ranks very high in resource potential but very low with regard to mining and oil and gas investments because of regulatory infrastructure and other issues.

In short, Mr. Chair, we have a lot riding on the success of devolution and the efficacy of regulatory reform.

I think we would all agree that it's difficult to optimize devolution of authorities without effective legislation and regulations. Therefore in the limited time we have, I will focus on the five key points of MVRMA reforms that we hope will be addressed by the federal government.

First, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for clear criteria to define projects of public concern and subsequently advocates for the NWT's regulator to make that determination rather than Ottawa. Specifically, there needs to be statutory criteria for the expansive interpretation of what might be of public concern in section 125 of the MVRMA. Clear criteria do not exist for determining public concern and that leaves the regulator with an open-ended obligation to accept such interventions without regard for merit.

There's an underlying belief that AANDC does not have authority to amend section 125 because it may violate land claim agreements. We believe that section 125 can be amended without contravening land claim agreements and in a manner that would better align the MVRMA with those agreements. The critical point here is to establish criteria for defining projects of public concern or thresholds that limit interventions to those of merit. As importantly, we believe the determination for defining a project of public concern should continue to reside with the territorial regulator, which would filter interventions through the new criteria.

Second, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for more specificity with regard to referral of projects to preliminary screening in section 124 of the MVRMA. None of the amendments to the MVRMA address the issues related to preliminary screening of applications. Too often, proponents are ordered to undertake environmental assessments regardless of the scale of projects. We're aware of simple exploration drilling applications being referred to EA. When the process costs more than the project, proponents have no choice but to withdraw their applications.

Such actions only drive investors out of the NWT. For a variety of reasons, we are already one of the most costly jurisdictions in the country in which to undertake exploration and project development. It makes no sense to burden resource investors with process costs that are unwarranted.

To be clear, we are not advocating for the elimination of the environmental assessment process; we are advocating for a more reasonable definition for project referral to an EA, perhaps based on the scale of projects.

Third, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for environmental assessment and environmental impact review decision-making caps of not more than one year for simple applications, including brownfield projects, and not more than two years for greenfield projects.

We are aware of projects taking far too long to get to approval. De Beers' Gahcho Kué project took seven years to receive approval. In fairness, the proponent slowed the application process during the global recession of 2008. However, the uncertainty related to regulatory decisions in the NWT is one of the major concerns of mining and oil and gas executives around the world. Capital goes where it can grow, so investors move on to other jurisdictions that provide greater certainty. We are fortunate that De Beers is committed to northern projects and is very well capitalized. Other investors would not take the chance on a regulatory process that has no defined decision-making caps.

The duration and cost of the decision-making process affects every applicant, including the crown. It took more than two years for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to receive a water licence renewal for the Taltson power plant. The plant has been operating since 1965. The corporation filed for a 15-year licence renewal, which is standard. The facilities were not being altered. Stream flows were not being altered. Yet the crown corporation was subjected to a costly two-year process, a cost that ratepayers had to pick up.

The current legislation and regulations need to be tightened up so that common sense may prevail. In our view, that begins with decision-making caps. The Yukon Territory provides applicants and investors with decision-making certainty through the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. The NWT must absolutely provide the same degree of certainty.

Fourth, the NWT Chamber of Commerce supports the creation of a single regulatory board for the entire NWT. We realize that this is a point of contention. However, in our view, federal legislation enables the government to create a single board with overarching authority. Notwithstanding that local boards have some merit, we don't believe the volume of applications in the NWT warrants multiple boards. Smaller boards don't have the resources to review complex applications. A single board would afford appropriate resources.

When powers were devolved to the Yukon, the Yukon environmental and socio-economic board was created as a central decision-making body for the territory. YESAB retained a local presence by establishing six designated regional offices that act as entry points for applicants. The same could happen in the NWT, where regional boards exist today. In that manner, a local presence and community ties are maintained when reviews take place in a central organization with the technical capacity to manage them efficiently.

Fifth, the NWT Chamber of Commerce advocates for a single-window application process for the NWT resource exploration and development projects—that is, a one-stop window for land and water use permits as well as licences.

Again, when powers were devolved to the Yukon, the right to issue mining licences remained with the federal government. In discussion with our industry colleagues in the Yukon, it seems that was an oversight. We have the opportunity here to ensure that the authority to issue licences resides in the NWT.

We are advocating for a single application window. In simple terms, when an application arrives for a resource exploration or development project, it triggers the system to address all aspects of the application concurrently, including all related federal and territorial authorities. This model is employed elsewhere in Canada. It creates vast efficiencies relative to the current system, where federal and territorial authorities work in a disintegrated fashion that leads to inconsistencies and regulatory duplication.

In the past 30 years, the transfer of responsibilities to the Government of the Northwest Territories has taken place for several programs and services, including the delivery of health care, social services, education, administration of airports, and forestry management. In our view, Bill C-15 is the next logical and single biggest step forward in history in the devolution of powers to our territorial government.

We are a resource-based economy. Managing our resources effectively and creating a healthy investment climate will support a strong local and national economy, and provide significant benefits to all of our communities and all of our residents.

Bill C-15 is a new beginning for the Northwest Territories.

That concludes our remarks, and again, thank you for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Stanzell.

We now have the Northern Territories Federation of Labour represented by Mr. Bob and Ms. Lockhart. Thank you so much for being here. We'll turn it over to you now for your opening statement.

[David Bob, Vice-President, Northern Territories Federation of Labour]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the record, my name is David Bob, and I am the vice-president for Northern Territories Federation of Labour. With me is Ms. Sandra Lockhart, the regional vice-president for Tlicho/Somba k'e.

On behalf of the more than 9,200 members of the Northern Territories Federation of Labour I would like to thank you for providing this opportunity to express our views on part 4 of Bill C-15.

The NTFL is comprised of many different unions representing workers from a full range of occupations in both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We have been chartered with the Canadian Labour Congress since May 1980 and are dedicated to ensuring the protection of both organized and unorganized workers' rights.

At the outset, it is important to state that we are concerned that only one day of meetings has been scheduled and that the meetings are only in Yellowknife. Bill C-15 is very important legislation that fundamentally changes how we operate in the Northwest Territories. While it is generous of you to have provided financial assistance for travel to Yellowknife, there are many other effectively silenced voices in our territory that also deserve the opportunity to be heard.

Bill C- 15 should really be split into two distinct bills that can be debated and voted on separately. Combining devolution legislation with amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a tortured exercise and one not worthy of a government wishing to be transparent and democratic. While some may quibble over the details and outcomes of devolution, that part of the bill will probably earn general consent from the people of the NWT.

The part of the bill that completely disrupts our existing regulatory system, however, is sure to elicit substantial adverse reactions. The intent of devolution is to transfer greater authority over land and resource decisions to the north and northerners, but we do not believe this would be achieved by the proposed changes to the regulatory regime contained in part 4 of the bill.

To make it perfectly clear, our primary concern is with the proposed elimination of regional boards. In our opinion and the opinion of what we believe is the majority of the people in the regions of the NWT, creating one mega-board will only allow greater outside political interference in the development decision-making and will adversely affect working people in the Northwest Territories.

Jobs are the essential driving force of the local economy in our communities. Many in the outlying communities continue to suffer from impacts of the current recession. Good well-paying jobs are very hard to come by. We are not arguing that regional boards should be operated solely as a make-work project, but we argue that some of the professed savings that are claimed to result from the creation of the mega-board are at the clear and direct expense of the economies and local communities where the regional boards now reside. The loss of these local jobs takes money out of the community. That in turn impacts local often struggling businesses that rely on these consumers' dollars.

We believe that these harmful effects have not been given the weight they deserve in the drive to centralize regulatory affairs in a mega-board far from the communities its decisions affect. The development of a mega-board based in Yellowknife will surely limit the regional input, reducing people's sense that they have a meaningful say in decisions that will affect their very way of life today and forever.

Consultation and effective democratic control over development decisions are being sacrificed in the drive for some ephemeral efficiency that may or may not be achieved through the workings of Bill C-15. Though quick decision-making may help a proponent get a faster response to the proposal, it does little help to ensure that the decisions are in the wider public interest. The Northern Territories Federation of Labour believes that the timeline provided for Bill C-15 places undue hardship on the individuals who represent their regions.

An average person's ability to fully understand the language contained within a proponent's proposal may be challenging at times. The burden this places on a board member to efficiently and fully communicate the nature of the proponent's proposal to the members of his or her community is difficult. Also, to gather and represent the region's concerns can be very challenging. Making their job harder by imposing arbitrary, unrealistic, or unnecessary deadlines is counterproductive.

In particular, those who sit on the new mega-board would face increased challenges in the collection of information if they represent regions that do not have fibre optic and high-speed connectivity. It is well-known that communities outside of Yellowknife that transmit signals through means other than fibre optic cable, and this is most of them, have regular interruptions of service. The lack of reliable communication infrastructure in much of the NWT makes emailing a risky business with many outages and dropped messages.

Communications problems are compounded by the seasonal nature of winter roads and the closure of highways and airports due to weather. Even mail service cannot be counted on at all times in the NWT. These are the realities that northern members of boards and agencies deal with day in and day out.

Having board facilities, services, and meetings in Yellowknife will greatly reduce the smooth and reliable flow of information, both inwards and outwards. The very attendance of board members and their ability to stand and speak for the concerns of those who reside within their regions are jeopardized by moving decision-making out of their communities and regions.

[Sandra Lockhart, Regional Vice-President, Somba K'e, Northern Territories Federation of Labour]

With the elimination of regional land and water boards, significant trust is lost. There will surely be a negative impact on the relationship between public government and the first nations people, especially in those regions that have signed treaties. Any collaborative spirit that might otherwise have underpinned an environmental assessment process will likely be lost.

Bill C-15 establishes a board system that is fundamentally different from and even hostile to that which was developed in accordance with the treaties of the Gwich'in, the Sahtu Dene, the Tlicho, the Dehcho, and the Inuvialuit. This unilateral attempt to reinterpret the purpose and intent of these land claim agreements, all of which were negotiated and signed in good faith, is unfortunately going to lead to strife and conflict.

This is regrettable, and it is a huge setback to the political development of the NWT. A more centralized regulatory system will inevitably threaten the growing sense of ownership and responsibility over regional boards that has been developing. Having one individual speaking on behalf of their region to a room full of representatives from other regions, who then get to vote and decide on a proposal, certainly does not guarantee that the desires of that region, of those most directly affected by the proposal, will be achieved.

There is also the issue of whether the new board will have the physical capacity to handle all environmental assessments in a timely manner. Where there was once a board in each region to handle proposals brought forward, now there will be only one, with a substantial workload.

Recent austerity measures have eliminated positions within the federal government, including those of professionals in the environmental field. These employees could have and would have been called upon to assist with environmental reviews. Is the necessary federal funding going to be allotted for needing staff to cover the dramatic increase in proposals that can be expected to be brought forward from proponents from the regions? Many northerners are concerned that the handover to the NWT of authority for the enforcement of regulations does not come with the resources necessary to do it.

Leaders are aware that many of the federal personnel employed during environmental assessment work have chosen to retire rather than transfer to the GNWT. This raises a concern about whether there are significant training dollars available so that newly hired local personnel can properly manage and enforce existing programs, not to mention implement new ones.

We also note with some disappointment the apparent lack of reference to and respect for local people who are well versed in traditional knowledge and who have much of value to say in environmental assessment matters. If they are unable to interpret regulatory legalese and to communicate these ideas to the public at large, much is lost. A mega-board hundreds of miles away in Yellowknife is not going to be able to take advantage of what these people have to offer.

Our recommendations are as follows: one, that the regional boards remain in existence to assist with the relaying and gathering of information from those who reside within the regions; two, that regional boards review any development proposal within their jurisdiction and create a regional position that reflects the informed views of those who reside within that proposed area; three, that a fail-proof auto-sent notification system be utilized to ensure email communication does not break down, and that accommodation, with time extensions, is permitted when it does; four, that procedures be put in place to ensure flight delays or cancellations don't deprive any board members of their right to participate in meetings; five, that the bill be amended to empower the regional and central boards to extend the 45-day time limit should it be necessary for the proper evaluation of a proposal; and six, that the bill require the government to adequately staff, train, and otherwise resource the boards, and should this not be done, that the time limits be waived.

In conclusion, we believe that the federal government has misplaced the priorities by putting forth Bill C-15 prior to settling the land claim agreements with the Akaitcho and the Dehcho. Recognizing the existing rights of all aboriginal peoples must be the first priority. After this is done, and only then, will Bill C-15 amended as we have suggested become a more palatable pill to swallow.

Finally, the Northern Territories Federation of Labour as a member of Alternatives North wishes to go on record as fully supporting and endorsing the analysis and recommendations in their brief.

Thank you again for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We'll start our rounds of questioning with Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the presenters here for their ideas. I'd like a short answer to my first question from everyone if possible. All three groups have come up with some recommendations for amendments to the MVRMA section of this bill.

Did you have an opportunity to present those in an official capacity to the Government of Canada over the last six months or year?

[Tom Hoefer]

We did.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Can you describe it?

[Tom Hoefer]

We had two rounds of consultations with AANDC, two opportunities to review—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So these recommendations were presented there?

[Tom Hoefer]

Yes.

[Allen Stanzell]

We did not have an opportunity to officially present our side—

[Michael Bradshaw, Executive Director, Northwest Territories Chamber of Commerce]

—until today.

[David Bob]

The Northern Territories Federation of Labour has not presented to the government. We did have an open forum in Inuvik with citizens within that region.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So with the exception of the NWT Chamber of Mines, this is your first chance to put these amendments forward. I'm interested in that, because of course part of the work we do will be to examine the amendments and ideas you're presenting and to see whether we can formulate amendments that we can put forward at committee. There will be a session probably within the next month. I would encourage you in all cases to give us the information so that we can judge whether we're receptive to putting forward those amendments.

It's good to get them formally on the record even if the history of amendments being accepted in the last two years is pretty abysmal with this government. We're quite willing to get on record any that we consider correct. We'll look at all of them. We'll ensure that every one gets scrutiny in that regard, because quite obviously there are things here that people look at as important but that are not included in this legislation.

I hear you guys speaking about the consolidation of the regional boards, and I don't find that the chamber of mines has put forward a very strong position on it. I see that the chamber of commerce, the union, is very much pro regional boards. Is this reluctance to firmly come out in favour of regional boards really an indication that you just want to stay onside with this legislation? This is a key issue in the Northwest Territories. This will determine, in some cases, the direction of our political development, and it has an enormous impact on social licence. You've heard through the process we've engaged in today that the social licence is going to play out through the north.

Is that why—and I speak directly to the chamber of mines—you've hedged your position on the regional boards?

[Tom Hoefer]

Let me speak to our position.

If we look back in history to the establishment of the boards, I can say that probably by the time Mr. McCrank was brought into the game we were starting to face a lot of divergence in the processes the boards were using. I think each board was starting to run as a board by itself. There were inconsistencies from one region to the next, which doesn't bode well if you're trying to market a region for investment dollars. When Mr. McCrank came in, that was something he was facing.

From that period forward, I think the boards themselves started to feel the pressure. I have to say that I haven't ever seen so many media editorials speaking to our problems up here. I think there was a lot of recognition in the Northwest Territories that there was a problem.

The boards, in all fairness, started to look inwards at themselves. They asked whether their processes were working, whether they were being consistent, and they realized that they weren't. They started to create their own consistent processes. You heard this morning how they started to create working groups across the boards to try to create basically one consistent board.

None of that is in legislation. That happened, I think, just because of the pressure being put on it, public pressure, or hopefully through industry saying what it wanted to say.

There's a logic to having a single board out there in that the board was already moving in that fashion. If you're trying to market a region of 43,000 people to investors, they'll start to yawn and lose interest if you start to explain, “Come on in. There's a whole collection of different boards—but it depends where you are.” I think there's an elegance to being able to sell it as having a consistent process.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I mean, you could—

[Tom Hoefer]

The challenge that we're in right now, if you don't mind, is that—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, I don't want you eating up all my time, if you don't mind.