:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bonjour.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's nice to be here with you. I would like to thank your clerk for making the arrangements so easy for me.
I hope to make a few opening remarks, because I understand that everyone has had access to this document, which is the report I prepared. I was hoping there would be somebody here from Indian and Northern Affairs to provide copies in case you didn't have them, but I see most people have it in any event. I haven't seen my colleagues from INAC show up, so I'm not sure if they're coming.
I thought for ten minutes or so I would outline the report, and then, as I understand it, the purpose is for you to ask questions about the report, which you probably had a good chance to review in any event. The outline would consist of a little discussion about the process and the mandate I conducted in preparing the report, some of the findings I made in the course of the time I was doing the report, some of the recommendations, and a brief comment about what I hope are the themes that arise out of this report from your reading of it.
First of all, in terms of the process, I was appointed a ministerial representative by Minister Strahl in November 2007, and the basic objective was to hold discussions with all the stakeholders in the three territories to see if recommendations could be made that would improve the regulatory environment. It was left fairly vague in terms of the specifics of the assignment itself, because a lot of initiatives are going on in the north, as I'm sure you are aware, and I don't think the minister wanted to tie me down to one area.
It was part of what is referred to in the federal government as a northern regulatory improvement initiative, and this was just one component of that. Ongoing improvements were being made at the time I did my report and are still being made, and this was to be part of that initiative.
I held meetings in about a dozen places in the north and in other parts of Canada with over 100 groups or individuals. Sometimes it was one person. Mr. Bevington and I met at one point, and at other times we met with groups of people, or I met with groups of people pretty well all the time on my own, although I have to say I was very well supported by INAC, who provided me with logistical support and any other support I needed. They did not try to influence in any way the shaping of the report or the recommendations, but they were a great support to me.
The groups I met with were local communities; aboriginal groups; some signatories to the land claim agreements; and all three of the territorial governments, including premiers from two of the territories. I had a lot of involvement with the federal government and the various departments, because as I'm sure you know, there's regulatory overlap in a lot of areas from the federal government's point of view, and of course I spent a lot of time with the various regulatory bodies. I'll go through that in a little more detail in a minute, but that gave me a good perception or good perspective on what was happening north of 60.
Initially, and it continued to be the mandate, I was to look at all three territories. But it became pretty clear to me at the outset that this was a pretty ambitious project and that perhaps it should be limited to where I thought the most serious issues were, and in my view, that was the Mackenzie Valley south of the Inuvialuit area. So while I did spend some time in Yukon and Nunavut, most of my time was spent in the Northwest Territories.
After all the meetings were held and I got some ideas together, we held a round table of all the stakeholders who were prepared to come. We had a very big room, larger than this, full of people from all the different stakeholder groups that I talked about from the three different areas, including industry--that I should have mentioned, by the way--which was one of the participants. We had two days of intensive discussion, where we bounced some ideas around about what some of the recommendations might be. At this stage I would confirm that most of the ideas that are in the report are not necessarily ideas of my own but ideas that came out of that round table and earlier reports that had been commissioned.
Moving on to the findings, the findings of course were that there could be improvements made, as there can be in any regulatory system, I suspect, in any place in the free world. What I tried to do, though, was to put some science behind the review. I tried to compare what was going on in the territories with what one might consider to be a model regulatory system. And I outlined 11 criteria that I think should be looked at if you are looking at a regulatory body for the first time and trying to set it up.
And then based on that analysis, I came up with some recommendations as to what should and shouldn't be repaired in the territories. There were 22 recommendations of a specific nature, and they apply right across the three territories. Again I have to say that none of those are rocket science and none of those are dramatically new.
One thing I did in my report was outline all of the previous reports that have been conducted in the north, and the recommendations that were made and the status of the implementation of those recommendations, some of which have been implemented and some of which have sat on the shelf some place. I regenerated all of those reports and, from those, came up with another 22 recommendations, which, as I say, are repetitive to some extent of what had happened in the past, but they are still good recommendations that still need to be implemented. And we can talk about the individual ones in a minute. Most of them, again, refer to the Mackenzie Valley, although they refer to all three territories in the broad sense.
The major recommendations I made were with respect to restructuring in the Mackenzie Valley area. And this is the one that has probably gathered the most interest and attention from parties that are in the north or elsewhere and have commented on it, some favourably and some not favourably in terms of what the recommendations were. It was and still is my judgment that at the moment the regulatory systems, at least in the Mackenzie Valley, fail to deliver on two specific grounds. One is that the system is far too complicated, and second, there is not the capacity in the various boards that exist in the north to perform the duties that you would expect from a regulatory body.
I should outline at this stage that my count—and there were different counts of how many regulatory bodies exist in the north—as well as I could do it, was 17 regulatory bodies in the Mackenzie Valley, all dealing with resource development. As I say, that adds a huge amount of complexity and in many ways under-delivers from a capacity point of view because of the numbers of them.
So my recommendations were that some of those boards be merged and that there should end up being one land and water board and one environmental board in, for instance, the Mackenzie Valley. One would say that takes away from the northern influence because the land claim agreements were all signed on the basis of local involvement and co-management of the resources. My suggestion is that it doesn't have to take away, because the influence can be brought to bear at an earlier point in the process, and that's at the land use planning stage. So a key or a fundamental component of the recommendation that we merge the boards would be that the land use plans have to be completed. They are not completed in most of the area of the north at the moment, and I think that's where the local influence, which is very important and is key, really, to the development of any community, has to be brought to bear.
The second component of that was that once this board that I had recommended be restructured is up and running, it should become the final decision-maker and it should not have to send recommendations here to Ottawa for the minister to make final decisions on. In other words, if we're going to set up a regulatory body that we have some confidence in, set it up and let it operate with that amount of confidence and make it the final decision-maker.
Of course, that board would consist of appointments by the federal government, but with the influence of the local government and the Northwest Territories government. That could change over time to be a NWT appointment process, or something of that nature.
Those are the recommendations I made. If one had sat in on the round table in Yellowknife in March 2008, one could have predicted those recommendations, because the discussion circled around all of those recommendations, including restructuring.
My final comment is on the themes that I hope come out of this report. The first one is that by no means is this report about resource development. It is not up to me to make a decision or recommendation on whether or not there is resource development in the north. That's to be made by the people who live in the north and are responsible for the northern communities. So this is not about resource development.
On what it is about, if a decision is made by those who are responsible--governments and local communities--to allow resource development, how can that resource development be done in an orderly and responsible way and in the public interest? That's where my recommendations come in on the regulatory bodies. That has been my role in life for a long time. I've been with regulators for a long time, and I've always said I am ambivalent as to whether or not development takes place. But if it's going to take place, let's ensure it takes place in a responsible way. So it's not about resource development; it's about ensuring that if there is resource development, it takes place responsibly.
The second theme that I hope comes through clearly is that local input is absolutely key to any development in the north. This has been clear from the land claim agreements that have been signed, which I fully support. The only difference I take with the current structure versus the way I suggest it should be is that the more appropriate time for that local input and influence to take place is at the land use planning stage, and not at the regulatory stage. At the land use planning stage you can carve off entire areas and say there should be no development for a variety of reasons, or there should be development in this area. But at that stage the regulatory system should kick in and make decisions as to whether or not the resource can be developed in an orderly and responsible way and in the public interest, taking into account very serious professional objectives relating to conservation, safety, engineering components, environmental aspects, and the like. But at that stage it's a technical decision and not a policy decision, as it is at the land use planning stage.
With those opening remarks, I'm open to try to respond to any questions members may have.
:
Honourable member, it's a very good question, and I think I got it all; I wasn't hearing all of it completely. But if the question is whether we can really expect that these constitutionally protected land claim agreements, from which the resource development regulatory bodies were developed or came out of, can be changed, I guess I understand the difficulty. In fact, I think I point out in the course of my report that at the round table discussion in Yellowknife, everybody agreed that reopening the land claim agreements would be very difficult. There's no question about that. There's a debate in some people's minds as to whether they have to be reopened or whether it can be an interpretation, the changes made just by interpretation. I'm not in that camp, because I think that would be avoiding the issue of re-addressing what I think was a fundamental error made when the regulatory bodies were set up, based on what was in the land claim agreements.
So I just say, whether or not legally you actually have to reopen it, I think there would have to be an enormous amount of negotiation and all parties would have to agree. The question is whether they would agree or not. I can't answer that. I did have some discussions with various aboriginal communities in the course of my review. My own perception was that some of them were receptive to looking at that aspect, because they felt there was a problem, there were some difficulties with the regulatory system, and if it took reopening them for that purpose they were prepared to do that. I know some are dead against it, and I was told that face to face by a number of parties: just don't go there.
My comment to the minister when I prepared the report and presented it to him was that it would be difficult, perhaps impossible...I don't think so, but it would be difficult. But if there isn't an attempt made to restructure today, there are at least three and perhaps more land claim agreements that still have to be completed in the north, as you know--the Tlicho, Dehcho, and the Métis--and some of those may split into two to three claims. We will have maybe 30 regulatory bodies in the Mackenzie Valley when those are completed, if they're completed on the same basis as the earlier land claim agreements. In other words, this is going to grow, and 10 years from now we'll sit around this table and say, why didn't we at least start, when we had only 17, because now it's an impossible situation.
So the long answer to your question is yes, it will be very difficult. I don't think it's impossible. I would urge the federal government to consider it at this stage, before it gets to the point where it is impossible, and there will then have to be a reopening to restructure in some fashion.
I'd love to get that name changed to the Northwest Territories, so if you can, convince everybody in Parliament to give me unanimous consent to get the name changed, which should have been done 10 years ago.
Anyhow, to start off, I can agree totally with your recommendation to get the land use plans done, because that's part of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is a responsibility of the federal government. That is something that has failed us over the years. Also, it has failed the other boards. The boards in the Northwest Territories can't rely on the land use plans to give the basis to make judgments on projects.
So in the absence of this basis of understanding that the land use plan gives, every single development has to be judged on its own merits, with no framework. As a person who sat on the Mackenzie Valley environmental assessment board, I know those problems, so I'm with you 100% on that.
As for the restructuring, I am absolutely opposed to that. In the early nineties, the Mulroney government decided that we would have regional land claims in the Northwest Territories. That decision was made. We were going towards comprehensive claims, and the decision by the federal government was to go to regional claims.
We have adapted to that. We have adapted the direction that we want to take constitutionally in the development of the Northwest Territories as an independent political unit based on regional land claims, not on a comprehensive claim. We've made that adjustment within the Northwest Territories. That's why I think you quite clearly see the Government of Northwest Territories saying no to the idea of restructuring.
Let's just go back to these 17 boards. If you're going to drill in the Sahtu region, for example, or if you're going to do a seismic program, there is one place where you put in your application: the Sahtu Land and Water Board. The land and water board has 45 days to put that forward, if they find that it has significant impact, to one single environmental impact review board for the whole Northwest Territories.
So in any region, there are only two steps in the environmental assessment process. The regional step deals within that region with the type of project going ahead. If there are problems with it, it goes to one single board for the whole Northwest Territories. So the complexity of it.... For regional use for most projects, it is within the defined regions. These are big regions of hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. So within those regions, there is only one board that deals with the application, and within the Northwest Territories, there is only one board for all the regions that deals with environmental assessment. So it's not that complex.
Where the complexity came in, in the last seven years, was with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, which traversed a number of different regions. There was a cooperation plan struck for that, and whatever happened with that is fine.
Really, that's the way it is. You've made your point about restructuring. I'm making mine.
When it comes to some of the other recommendations, did you take into account the legitimate desire of the people of the Northwest Territories to control development? Was that part of your mandate?
Good morning, Mr. McCrank. It's good to have you with us.
I want to follow up on some of the line of questioning that has taken place around the table.
When I read your recommendations, it seems to me that many of them are predicated on proper implementation of the land claims agreements themselves. For instance, there are the land use plans, which are usually part of the land claims agreements. We've heard a number of different parties come to this committee and in other forums talking about the proper implementation of land claims. I'm just wondering if the proper implementation of land claims was an issue that was raised during your consultations. I think it also speaks to your issue of capacity. Given that a number of these boards or commissions are due to the land claims agreements, that a number of the appointees are from the land claims groups themselves, which is understandable, of course—I think it's a must—I see this as part of a land claims implementation process as well.
I want you to comment, because I heard one of my other colleagues raise this. Is the complexity having to do with the number of regulatory boards, or is it about the differing regimes in different regions? For instance, if there was consistency in terms of regulations in the northern parts of, say, the Northwest Territories and the southern part, would that make it easier? If it's not the number but the process, so to speak, maybe that's the easier thing to do than, say, opening up the land claims agreements themselves.
When you say “restructure”, that's about numbering, it seems to me. If you can do more consistency, at least with different boards, maybe that's a better way to go. Can you make some comment on that?
Thank you, Mr. McCrank, for joining us today. We'd been looking forward to talking with you about your report and its recommendations.
Mr. McCrank, I want to spend a little bit of time talking about land use planning, perhaps in not as technical a fashion, although in my own study of law I was fascinated with land use planning as it intersected with first nations communities and traditional lives of northerners particularly. Obviously, coming from the Kenora riding, that's an issue in a number of areas, including forestry and mining.
I think in our riding, which does come to the shores of Hudson Bay, we're doing a pretty good job of understanding and respecting core principles of land use planning around a number of resources. There are some serious considerations in these regards, obviously--the integration of first nations communities' sense of resource management on that land and making policy on the basis of what ministries of natural resources have viewed historically as the crown's, and in terms of licensing and traditional thoughts by first nations, including the animals on those lands, many of them migratory.
In what I have read so far, land use planning appears to be a critical issue in that it must reflect northern, in particular first nations, values in terms of use and impact. Then obviously there's the representation of things like migratory animals. I know, particularly in the Northwest Territories, that's an important process that hasn't been protected.
In view of those things, could you talk about what kinds of consultations you had with first nations in the Northwest Territories? What is their opinion or assessment of the regulatory framework, and what is their appetite for reform in these regards?
:
Thank you for that question.
It varied from north to south, with the very northern end, the delta of the Inuvialuit area, believing that their regulatory system works quite well. As you know from my report, I did not make specific comments, other than general ones, about the Inuvialuit area because I think they have actually tried to make it work, are doing so, and I didn't want to touch that.
The further south you came the less enthusiastic people were in the local communities about the current system. I did not, unfortunately, spend any time with the Dehcho community. We were supposed to, but there was a change of leadership and also there was a death in one of the families when we were trying to arrange dates, and we couldn't do it. I actually ran into Grand Chief Gerry Antoine yesterday, last night, coming down on the plane and we chatted for a little while. He now wants to get together and review this, I think. I told him what I was doing this morning, so he's interested.
There's no question that, in any of the areas, the regulatory bodies that currently exist will say to you publicly that they're very much in favour of the current system and the local input that they get from the system. This is partly, I think, because in some areas the land use plans have lagged and this is their only chance to separate an area from development. Privately, I can't think of any of the regulatory bodies I met that didn't say there had to be some change in the regulatory system, because it's simply not working from their point of view either, but they won't say it publicly.
:
Thank you, Mr. Payne. It's good to be here with you from Alberta.
Actually, I reread this last night on the way down, and I think I would have reworded this a little better if I'd had a little more time. Having said that, let me just talk about those three areas that I talk about.
I don't think the NWT is much different from any other part of this country: people are appointed to boards, they're told to make it work, and they don't really get any guidance from anybody.
I chaired a committee in Alberta a couple of years ago on the agencies, boards, and commissions that come out of the Alberta government. When we started the process, I was told we were to look at 125. When we finished, we found out there were 250. Obviously, governments don't necessarily keep track of their agencies, boards, and commissions as well as they should, and in keeping with that, training and orientation and continuing education are often absent. So the NWT is no different.
Having said that, I think an ideal system would be that when people take on these roles, they.... The NEB is a good example of people who are actually, I think, brought to Ottawa for some course that's put on for them. They're continuously upgraded, and they're allowed to go to meetings where they can get upgraded. I don't think that's necessarily occurring in the NWT, or in most boards in Canada. It should be. It's very important that we allow them to keep up with current technology and current thinking in those areas.
I hope that answers your question, sir.