Natural Resources committee  There was nothing whatsoever.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. The roles were reversed in our case, very definitely.

Natural Resources committee  The regulatory delay, as I mentioned, was due to the joint review panel that was established to review the environmental and socio-economic aspects of the pipeline. That panel ran into a number of issues. It's difficult, because under the land claims settlements, the jurisdiction for environmental review was passed from CEAA on to a number of regional land and water boards and environmental review boards.

Natural Resources committee  Well, one important difference between our pipeline and the Northern Gateway Pipeline is that they're an oil line, and we're a natural gas line. I think that probably has something to do with it. Other than that, there are differences between aboriginals in the north and their needs and desires and aboriginal communities in the south.

Natural Resources committee  There's no question that during construction there will be a high degree of imported labour from the south. That is going to happen. There are only 45,000 people in the entire Northwest Territories.

Natural Resources committee  Okay. I stand corrected. In any case, there will be a large quantity of jobs imported, and skilled labour imported, to construct the pipeline. The problem you're referring to is a very real problem—that is, encouraging aboriginal youth to stay in high school and complete their high school education.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you for the question. Let me give you a very specific example. Several years ago, APG was instrumental in developing the aboriginal training program to ensure that aboriginal employees would be trained and ready to operate the pipeline. This was a program that consisted of both an academic stream and a work term, on-the-job training program with two streams, one for technicians and one for journeymen.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, that would have a very definite negative impact on not just the pipeline but the aboriginal communities along the route. The aboriginal communities have no economic base at the moment. They desperately need this pipeline to create an economic future.

Natural Resources committee  I can tell you that in our case the model has worked and continues to work well. There is a difference between the model that we have--the APG model, I'll call it--for ownership, and the model that Enbridge has proposed for aboriginal ownership in the Northern Gateway pipeline. In our case, it's a true one-third ownership interest with participation on the boards, as I described earlier, and input into the various committees.

Natural Resources committee  At the end of the day, in terms of the sheer revenue, yes, the models would be similar in that case.

Natural Resources committee  I believe that question should be directed to Mr. Caron.

Natural Resources committee  I'm not familiar with those documents. I just would like to point out that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline is a natural gas pipeline and not related in any way to the Canadian oil sands.

Natural Resources committee  The duty to consult for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline was handled in a very thorough manner, firstly by an extremely thorough regulatory process, and secondly by the consultations resulting from the access and benefits agreements negotiated with each of the groups.

Natural Resources committee  In our case it was handled a little differently, because it was the aboriginal people who took the initiative and approached the producing companies to obtain an ownership share in the pipeline. The usual case is for the producers or oil companies to approach the aboriginals. In this case the tables were reversed: the aboriginal people needed to establish an economic base for the Mackenzie Valley, and they recognized the opportunity available by participating in an ownership in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to give them a revenue stream for many years to come.

Natural Resources committee  We certainly do not support eliminating the duty to consult in any way. It's a very important piece of legislation that requires anyone entertaining development on aboriginal lands to go through a detailed consultation process. We support that process, and we do not support eliminating it.