Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2011

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

Let me ask another question.

In the territories, Indian and Northern Affairs tends to have a predominant lead role when it comes to a lot of the regulatory processes. For some things I can see why they would continue to have that.

Do you think it might be a good idea to shift some of the regulatory processes from Indian and Northern Affairs to another department, say Natural Resources, which would have a different culture or different approach? INAC has a certain history and a certain mandate and a certain culture, as do all of the departments. Do you think that might be helpful to get a more streamlined process for regulatory reforms?

[Bradley Gemmer]

My experience in Nunavut would suggest that the people, not having spent their life behind a desk or anything.... What's required is a way that they can be assisted in their efforts—I don't want to use the word “led” or anything—with them instead directing what happens from a supervisory position. One of the guys on Baker Lake said, “If I approve it, it's just going to mean a whole bunch more work for me.” And that's true, because they don't have that capability or desire to do that kind of—

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

How do you incentivize people to want to do a whole bunch more work? The more work we have, the more prosperity can come there.

[Bradley Gemmer]

Well, they like to be involved and they have a keen interest in stuff; they don't like to be bypassed, but they don't want to be in a situation where it is all on their shoulders to make these humongous decisions—

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

Do we do timelines? Do we do financial incentives? What do we do to get this thing to be more efficient?

[Bradley Gemmer]

Money means nothing. They're all making what they need to live. They don't have money. They get certain assistance for their heat and power. Then they go out on the land. The need is for them to be supervising a group that will oversee the things going through, and go to them and say, “What do you think about this, Joe? Is this going to work for you or not?” There are not that many people up there. To have the onus be put on the few who are willing makes it really tough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

We will go now to Mr. Stewart, for up to five minutes.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find this a very enlightening conversation. I thank you both very much for your presentations. Maybe both of you can reflect on this. Perhaps you might say there are two norths in a way. There is the one north where you have first nations who have signed treaties and have settled land claims. That's where we have heard from other companies, including your own, where the work seems to get done and where you can go through the permitting process a little faster. You can build relationships, there is co-management, or companies like your own are able to operate in these areas.

But on the other side we have a very different north. That is where we don't have any treaties, or with first nations we have treaties and we have disputed land claims. Essentially, that seems to be the main place where the hang-ups are. Maybe I'm mistaken here. I guess it comes back to the Constitution, of course, under which, in section 35, first nations have rights that are protected. And where there is clouded title on lands, there has to be—in my mind anyway—a government-to-government negotiation on how those settlements are going to go forward. It's not simply just moving land from, say, under the jurisdiction of INAC to Natural Resources. It's actually getting down to the fundamentals of who is in control of the land.

I see you nodding, Mr. Sibbeston. Could I perhaps—and Mr. Gemmer after—have your comments on that thought?

[Glen Sibbeston]

My understanding of it is that the relationships between...actually go back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, if I'm not mistaken, where the Crown of England was dealing with the first nations as peers. All of that transcends the Constitution and all of the government functions of Canada. I believe the courts are seeing it that way.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

If I could just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Gemmer, did you want to respond as well?

[Bradley Gemmer]

You're right. There are probably two at least, and maybe three. There's the eastern Arctic, the northern Arctic, we'll call it—Yellowknife and Glen's area—and then of course there's the western Arctic, where there's more proximity to western culture. People have been more exposed to it.

In the eastern Arctic, with the resource revenue policy, which I think was just recently passed, the native population will become the richest per capita probably anywhere in the world. The Baffinland project alone is going to put billions of dollars in royalties in their hands. Once you get people, and you ask what motivates people to do things once they have no need, it then becomes a real problem to get things like this going.

I don't know if I'm wandering off here or not. The experience I have is that they need very little, but they have TV piped in that shows them everything that they will never have. It shows them environments they will never see. It shows them experiences they will never have. This is a huge problem. They also have an incredible weakness for junk food and stuff like that. There is going to be a massive diabetes problem up there. Anyway, I had to throw that in because I wouldn't feel right not to.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Gemmer, you say that would characterize all first nations in the north?

[Bradley Gemmer]

I would say that's the eastern Arctic. In the western Arctic, in the Yukon, they're exposed; they're very sensitive to money. They all drive the best trucks they can and have had significant wins on a lot of cases. But that's not for all of the native population either. Certain ones have been very fortunate and others haven't been so fortunate. It's always going to be a problem.

The central Arctic, I would say, is as Glen has portrayed it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Sibbeston, might you have a different perspective?

[Glen Sibbeston]

Regarding the eastern Arctic, I have a friend who worked up there as a nurse, and he related a story to me about how he had tried to explain to them that the pop and the chips were junk food. They refused to accept the notion that somebody would create junk food. They kept eating it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

There are all kinds of new things happening up north.

I was just wondering, in terms of moving ahead—I know my time is short here—would you say that at least in the west, where we don't have the treaties...? I'm from British Columbia. Almost the entire land base of British Columbia has not been settled. Do you think that would be the first thing we could do to develop the north, to make sure those are settled?

Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Sibbeston, and then move on to see how we could help change the regulations.

[Glen Sibbeston]

Once it's clear who owns the land, then everybody can move forward. It is extremely difficult when the lands are contested. Rightly, the federal government has their hands tied as far as granting.... There's only so much they can do; they need the consent of the aboriginal peoples who have claims to the land. So you have more parties that need to agree to make something happen. Once the land claim is settled, if it falls on the claimed land areas, then the ownership is known, and if it's on crown lands, they're crown lands. It's much simpler and easier, and more gets done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Harris, go ahead, please, for up to five minutes.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, on that same subject—Mr. Kennedy brought up British Columbia land claims—it's a common assumption or understanding that over 110% of the land mass in British Columbia is under claim, because of the overlaps. To someone looking from the outside in, it would seem like an impossible situation, and at the end of the day perhaps it is.

What that means in the minds of some people is that the entire province of B.C., including downtown Vancouver, downtown Prince George, downtown Kelowna, is not crown land—whether it's municipal, provincial, or federal—but rather is owned by first nations. When I look at the word “conundrum”, I think of a perfect example, because there doesn't seem to be, first of all, any logic to the fact that this situation can happen. Secondly, there doesn't seem to be any way out.

I recall some land claims up in your area. I was involved in the Yukon land claims way back when, in the mid-nineties, and then the ones that were just south of the Yukon border in northern British Columbia. I can't remember the name of that particular area. Given the length of time it takes to sort those out, it seems like an impossibility. When you're talking about the exploration in the Arctic and you have the land claims, and then you couple that with the regulatory system, and then you couple that with the environment, and you couple that with, as you pointed out, people who appear to have their own agendas, it's a wonder we have anybody up there who's prepared to put in the investment in time and money to get the minerals out. I suppose if it weren't such a rich area for mineral exploration, there wouldn't be anyone up there.

I'm trying to think of a question here, but maybe you could just give me an assessment of some of the things that I've just brought up.

Talking about the length of time, it's no better in British Columbia. I have a mine in my riding. It's been 17 years and $100 million, and they just had another injunction thrown at them. So you wonder why they don't pack up their cash and head to another country; it's so much easier.

Anyway, could you give just an assessment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Sibbeston.

[Glen Sibbeston]

I know there's a fear of giving title to the land, to large pieces of land. If it was done right, I think everybody could do very well by it.

Let me give you the example of the energy industry in Alberta, where lands are serving dual purposes. The land is being farmed, and with some disruption, not too much, it's also being used to extract energy. So more than one party can make good use of the land.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I just want to throw something out that I forgot, that I've been dying to say, because it's a common thought.

Behind every land claim and conundrum, there appear to be a battery of lawyers and consultants who have got their hands around that cash cow and are just milking it for everyone. And the common thought is that they never want this to end because it's just too good.

Do you agree with that in any way?

[Bradley Gemmer]

I would say that it has been rumoured. I can't be more polite than that.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm going to get calls tonight.