Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[Pat Marcel]

That's a tough call.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I've worked in the northern parts of Canada, quite a ways north of Fort Chip, and some of the issues you described are very common and not unique to Fort Chip. There's poor housing and brutally high costs, especially when you have a town where everything has to be flown in or brought in by barge or winter road. How do you do it specifically? Your community is not unique, so it doesn't just need a unique solution. There needs to be a solution applied for many communities all across the north.

What would you view as being completely unique about your community due to the oil sands and the oil sands development? I know it's almost impossible to do what I'm asking you, but how do the oil sands specifically impact you differently from other northern communities?

[Pat Marcel]

I would have to say, from the top of my head, that we do not have the capacity to compete with a major company that deals in heavy equipment. We don't have the personnel to even negotiate better deals for us. We have to do all these things ourselves because we don't have the funding or the resources. But we're learning. We stumble, get up, and go again. That's the process we've been going through.

Seeing where the development is taking place, in one way it's great for the people who need to work. I have no problem with development, as long as you make it sustainable on my land. That's where I'm coming from. The Richardson back country is the hard land of my people, and it's where we practise our treaty rights to hunt, fish, and trap. It's being overrun by four-wheelers in the summer and ski-doos in the winter. There's total disruption and no policy in place; no government to control anything like that.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I appreciate your remarks. Having lived in some of the northern communities that don't have the competition from a megaproject that's putting economic and social pressures on, I can see how your situation would be unique.

Mr. Chair, how's my time coming?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You're over by just about a minute.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Then I will graciously yield, after having had a gracious minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for doing so.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all of you for coming to appear before us today.

Ever since we started this oil sands study, I have had lots of conversations with my father. He consistently says to me that man is the greediest animal on earth. I don't know if that's fair in the context of this study, but it ever comes to mind when I think about this huge machine grabbing more land and basically rolling over people. It's almost out of control, it seems. I guess part of what we're trying to do is ascertain if it is out of control, if it is sustainable, and I have real questions about that.

Your perspectives today, particularly those of Ms. Blake and Elder Marcel, have started to provide some balance to what we're hearing from other witnesses. And Mr. Allen also has a perspective, one that we've heard much of over the last number of weeks. I question whether the development as it exists—let alone expansion of it—is sustainable. There are enormous questions that we have to come to grips with as a committee.

My personal feeling on this is that the perspective you gave around infrastructure, about the environment, Chief Marcel, and your people—I would agree with Mr. Trost—and your community is probably not unique. But what it tells me is that we've done a piss-poor job of dealing honourably with our aboriginal peoples wherever the hell we live in this country. That's what this tells me. We've done a bad job.

I'd like to ask a direct question. Would you like to see a moratorium on this development until we come to grips with some of the challenges we have, until we have an honourable relationship with our aboriginal people, until we have the infrastructure, plans, and some money in the bank, so to speak, to help out with the burgeoning of your community, and until we come to grips with putting some caps on CO₂ emissions, greenhouse emissions, and these types of things? Do you think we need to have a moratorium? That's not saying we'll stop it altogether forever, but just so we can come to grips with some of these challenges. I think the federal government has a role to play, particularly with aboriginal people. Under section 91, class 24, of the Constitution, we have a responsibility for “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”. We have a responsibility to uphold “existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples” under section 35. We have responsibilities, and I think our committee is going to have to make some tough recommendations as we go forward.

I'd like to have comments from all three of you on that issue of a moratorium.

[Melissa Blake]

I would start.

Only because the regional council has given us a mandate to intervene in project applications as they come forward and had given due consideration to what we believed was appropriate for our region—trying to take into perspective all of those interests, including the business interests and development pace that we're facing—we've been very careful not to use the word “moratorium”. When we were facing a proliferation of airstrips, we said “moratorium”. We got that resolved in short order.

With the oil sands, we're talking about delay. The reason for delay is to put into place appropriate mechanisms for responsible development of that asset to the benefit of people in Wood Buffalo, to the benefit of Alberta, and to the benefit of Canada. We think there is going to be a perpetual need for the commodity. We also believe there's a better way to do what we're doing. So with respect to what we have requested as a council, it's a delay that we use, but for the intents and purposes, we want to find the right solutions to the situation.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen]

On behalf of business groups, we certainly don't believe a moratorium would be the way to go. There's a negative context behind that. In fact, while—

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

What about a little bit more measured pace, or a slowing, or—

[Mike Allen]

Again, we believe that intervention and interference.... Government getting in there and putting in place those regulations environmentally is very important, but we believe the market will work itself out and that industry will work with the market forces to make it sustainable economically. But environmental policy is certainly where we see the government's role. It's also integral to sustainable and managed growth.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I disagree with you to some extent. We have a role. Some people might think we're just there as great good-looking guys and gals, but we have a role. From my perspective, I'm elected, so I'm bloody well going to exercise it to the best of my ability. But I'd just like to hear from the elder.

[Pat Marcel]

As far as my band is concerned, we have never called for a moratorium on projects. All along, the elders have said that if it is sustainable, then we will support it. That's why we go through the EIA process. We approve. We make the recommendation to the chief and council to approve a project.

Having said that, when we look at the air pollution that we're getting through the air emissions, and the water and the lack of water.... The Alberta government right now says that river can sustain fish, but the first nations are saying no. The river is so low this year that they shouldn't be producing as much through the winter months. But we didn't get that. Nobody gets that recommendation. But this is what has to be looked at. You have to look at how much water is there in the river. You have to tell the Alberta government, “All right, it's your land. You say it's yours. You own the resources and the water and the fish and everything. You have to manage those things a lot better than you're managing them right now.”

First nations have always been stewards of land. For thousands of years we did not leave a footprint. But that's what you see around Fort McMurray today. Before that gets cleaned up, I am the person who has to live with it in the future. I have grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will have to live the way I did. When we look at that, we can honestly say we do not mind seeing a delay in projects here, until a lot of our questions are answered on the sustainability of our environment and where our young people are going with all this fast-paced development.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Chair, am I doing okay?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have another minute.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

You're generous today, I tell you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I am. But I do want to get concluded by about 5:10. And I think Mr. Tonks has a question.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I will defer to my friend here, but I do want to thank you for your presentation.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

As do I, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to make my question as concise as possible, because I am—and I'm sure the committee has been—taken by the challenge that we face.

When there is an application for a new development, there is an environmental assessment. The problem that I think the committee has seen is that there are environmental assessments, joint assessments, that take place, and there is a cumulative impact. Both need to be part of that equation that equals sustainability. I think the committee is attempting to understand how we can help and can make recommendations that will address that.

As one who comes from a municipal background, my question is on the quantum of the issue with respect to all the royalties and taxes that are gathered. They are not being redirected into the municipalities' capacity. Whether it's your water and sewage treatment or whether it's your waste water, there are a number of social and heavy infrastructure investments that need to be made.

The Vancouver agreement is a tri-level agreement. There is a similar agreement in Winnipeg. The cities of Montreal and Toronto are attempting to develop these tri-level agreements. Would that be the kind of structure, Madam Mayor, that you've referred to in terms of regional tripartite agreements? Are you familiar with that concept or that framework? Is that the kind of application that this committee could be helpful with in terms of at least putting in the structure to institutionalize or functionalize that kind of dialogue? Then out of that comes absolute recommendations with respect to investments. Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

[Melissa Blake]

Thank you.

I believe it is, and that's an issue that fell from our 2002 business case. We actually did a lot of work on it. I'm sure we considered Vancouver and Winnipeg, and I thought there was one in Saskatchewan that existed as well. It was on the foundation of that that we thought we would create a memorandum of understanding that would be beneficial to the inclusion of federal, municipal, and provincial sharing of project costs on a strategic basis.

In some respects, it may be bilateral between us and the province, or it may be bilateral between us and the federal government, depending on where the best interests lie and on what is appropriate in those jurisdictions. We did advance that, and we did have a warmth and receptiveness from the previous government on proceeding that way. In our home province, we ran into a stumbling block. The deal did not progress the way we intended. The intention was to have the province invite the federal government to participate, and that just didn't happen, so it stalled. I just don't know how to reinvigorate that, but we do have an excellent working foundation, if it were to be re-initiated, to springboard from.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

There are a lot of questions, but I would suggest that our researchers could look at that as a template that we might wish to incorporate into our recommendations, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate that response. I have just one question.

In your present fiscal operating bylaws, do you have the capacity to levy development charges against the companies?

[Melissa Blake]

I do not. There are very nominal fees that are applicable for the development process, but they're related to the....