Public Accounts Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The report indicates that 11 of the 21 are not being used right now. You're saying that on one of those, the R designation has been removed, so there are 10 that still that have it which are not being used.

Why is it so complicated?

[Terry Sewell]

There are a couple of steps to it. There is a second parcel, I'm told, that is close to having the R designation removed—within weeks. The process is that if there have been actual undertakings on the site, for instance buildings or storage of contaminated materials, we have to do a joint inspection with the Inuvialuit Land Corporation of the site, develop a jointly agreed remediation plan, then carry out the remediation plan, and then jointly inspect the property at the end of that.

You can appreciate that the geography we're talking about here has a very narrow season, because you don't generally do this kind of remediation with snow on the ground. There's a very narrow period of time to do the inspections required and the remediation work. It takes rather longer than we would like, but the Inuvialuit have asked me to make this a point of real priority over the last year, and that's led us to refine the process to see that to use a quitclaim process and remove our designation actually works.

So I'm pleased with the progress. It's taken longer than we would like, but it's showing results.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

In his opening statement towards the end, and this is more or less standard, Mr. Campbell said:

The committee may wish to invite INAC to table their action plan and explain what changes have been put in place to ensure that they live up to the commitments they made in response to our recommendations.

Is there an action plan specifically respecting this report that deals with each of the recommendations, and if so, could it be tabled?

[Michael Wernick]

What we have is action, and I have a number of pieces of reporting of progress. We're trying to put them in a form that Mr. Campbell would agree is a kind of plan that they can monitor. We will be doing that within the next month or so.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Can we expect that it would be tabled with our committee?

[Michael Wernick]

Yes, I'd be quite happy to table the plan and to provide written update reports at whatever intervals the committee requires.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Is it reasonable to say by the end of April?

[Michael Wernick]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Bevington, you have four minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to understand moving forward how we can see what the departmental response will be. That's why I put my questions earlier in reference to the Mackenzie gas project, which is a project that is now, through the environmental assessment process, likely to have a report given to your minister in the next eight to nine months.

Under the agreement, with the understanding of these objectives within the final agreement, will you be under any obligation to present a report to the minister on how this project impacts these objectives?

[Michael Wernick]

The process of the Mackenzie pipeline review and the response to it has actually been transferred to Mr. Prentice, and the secretariat that was part of INAC is now at Industry Canada. So he will be dealing with it. As alluded to by your question, there are very important parts of it that are INAC responsibilities, because we are still a significant regulator in the north, and we will take a look at the impacts.

Part of the success of the agreement was its creation of bodies like the fisheries joint management committee and environmental impact steering committee, the environmental impact review board, the wildlife.... And the Inuvialuit are perfectly capable of representing themselves and making their points and arguments at these bodies, as my understanding is that they've been active participants in the MGP review process.

We will take a look at the potential impacts of the pipeline, should there be one, on the Inuvialuit people, for sure.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It may be that your ability to respond to a project like this may indicate to the committee what the nature of your responsibility is in working with these groups on it. Whether or not there are groups set up to present to the panel, the panel will still take these recommendations and go forward, and I'm sure your minister is going to be involved in the ones that are related to him. So in the final designation of these recommendations, he's going to make some decisions that will obviously match—if you've made this agreement in good conscience—the agreement. So your minister has some responsibility to match the agreement he has signed. Whether there's been prior consultation with the other groups, the Mackenzie gas panel is still comprised of many groups, and it may not reflect the Inuvialuit position at the end of the day.

[Michael Wernick]

Yes. I don't know if this will be helpful to you, Mr. Bevington, but the panel will report on the potential impacts of the pipeline. The National Energy Board will take a licensing decision. The commercial proponents will decide whether the project is economic or not.

We will be active participants, as will be other federal departments, in responding to whatever the joint review panel's recommendations are, and we'll certainly be briefing the minister and trying to be very clear about how it impacts not just the Inuvialuit, but all of the aboriginal groups down the corridor.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When it comes to reasonable standards for the granting of contracts, we've seen quite a bit of work done in this regard through the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit, and the Gwich'in. You're not dealing with a blank page here. I'm going in the direction of the others in wondering why this is taking the time it has, and why you haven't come up with some designations to this date when quite obviously the Government of the Northwest Territories was into this in 1999, or nine years ago. Not only have you had the responsibility for 23 years, but you've also had a model to follow for the last nine years.

[Michael Wernick]

If there's a question, I guess what we're trying to do is to insinuate this particular settlement area into the entire Government of Canada procurement machine, which is across many goods and services and across all departments and agencies. It is a very difficult challenge. We're trying to make it as easy as possible for the actual front-line procurement officers to be reminded of what it creates. My understanding is that it creates an opportunity for procurement; it doesn't guarantee they'll be awarded any contracts. It guarantees that they will be made aware of opportunities—which should be a lot easier on the Internet—and then they can go after the business. They have a very good chance, given their track record of securing some of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, for four minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Sewell, who is the lead, or what is the name of the lead person, on this particular file?

[Terry Sewell]

The project officer overseeing the implementation of the Inuvialuit agreement is a young woman by the name of Chandeep Bajaj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

And how long has Ms. Bajaj been on this file?

[Terry Sewell]

Approximately two years now.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

How many people does she have working for her on this file, or is she alone working on it?

[Terry Sewell]

She is the sole project officer on this. She has support staff access, but she carries this file on her own.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

She has been on this from precisely which year? You said two years, so was that starting in 2006 or in 2005?

[Terry Sewell]

I can't be sure just going by my memory, but it seems to me she's been with me on it over the last two years. I can get a more precise date if that would be helpful, sir.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I also understand that you're under an obligation to report progress on this particular file, progress against obligations, and we don't have such a report for 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07. What's going on?