Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 5 - Evidence - February 4, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 4, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:20 p.m. to examine the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate and I'm chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators, as well as any members of the public with us in the room or listening through the webcast.
I will now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves. The deputy chair is not here yet, so I will begin with Senator Day.
Senator Day: My name is Joseph Day, I'm a senator from New Brunswick and I'm pinch-hitting for Senator Sibbeston.
The Chair: And we're glad to have you here.
Senator Day: Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
Senator Black: Doug Black from Alberta.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
The Chair: Thank you. In addition, I would like to introduce the staff we have supporting us: From the Library of Parliament, Marc LeBlanc, welcome back; Sam Banks; and our clerk, Lynn Gordon.
Today is the fifth meeting of our pre-study hearings on Bill C-15, whose short title is the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. This bill was introduced in the House of Commons on December 3, 2013.
It gives me great pleasure today to welcome, in the first part of our meeting, Mr. Dennis Fentie, coming to us by video conference from his hometown of Watson Lake, Yukon. Mr. Fentie was the seventh premier of the Yukon and leader of the Yukon Party, serving from 2002 to 2011, as well as the MLA for Watson Lake.
Welcome, Mr. Fentie. I would like to acknowledge and thank the Watson Lake campus of Yukon College for facilitating your appearance by video conference today.
Here in Ottawa we are also joined by Mr. Kirk Cameron, a born-and-raised Yukoner with experience in evolution of governance in the Yukon, including devolution of lands and resources and the development of the modern Yukon Act. Mr. Cameron is also a councillor with the City of Whitehorse at present.
Gentlemen, I thank both of you for being with us for this first part of our meeting. We are interested in hearing about your experience and lessons learned from the devolution in the Yukon over 10 years ago.
Mr. Fentie, please commence with your opening remarks, and we will follow with Mr. Cameron. Afterwards we will move to a question and answer session. I remind witnesses to please speak clearly and slowly and remember that your testimony is being simultaneously translated into French and transcribed. We have approximately 55 minutes for the first segment of our meeting, after which we will take a brief pause to disconnect the video conference and seat our next witness.
Mr. Fentie, please go ahead. It's good to see you again.
Dennis Fentie, Former Premier of Yukon, as an individual: And you, Senator Neufeld. Greetings, senators and ladies and gentlemen, from Yukon. I want to extend first my appreciation for this opportunity. I can tell you that devolution for Yukon was one of the most important and significant developments of responsible government in the territory.
Let me begin by pointing out that this is all about responsible government and decision-making. Perhaps former Commissioner Gordon Cameron said it best when he lamented, "You can't run a team of horses with reins 3,000 miles long." The desire by Yukoners to manage their own affairs, to have administrative control here in the Yukon, goes back probably as far as 1898.
Our first wholly elected legislature came about in 1909. From there the process of developing responsible government in the Yukon has been a long, arduous affair. But let me fast-forward to an important time in Yukon's history of governance, and that is when then-Minister Jake Epp instructed then-Commissioner Ione Christensen of the Yukon to relinquish and transfer executive powers to the first wholly elected cabinet in the Yukon Territory.
From that time in 1979, two distinct and important paths evolved when it comes to responsible governance in the Yukon: One of the paths was the land claims process and the other was the devolution process. These resulted in two important landmark agreements in the Yukon.
First, in 1993 was The Umbrella Final Agreement, which establishes a clear framework within which the First Nations of the Yukon and public government will participate jointly as governments in the territory, specifically when it comes to lands, waters and resources.
The second very important agreement that was signed in 2001 is known as the devolution transfer agreement. It was from that time that the Yukon changed quite dramatically in how it conducted its affairs. It certainly contributed greatly from the period of 2001 forward to where we are today, through a number of important results that have taken place in the Yukon.
The economy, for example, was one of them; how we manage our environment is another; our overall social development is another; and, of course, investment in infrastructure throughout the territory is another. A lot of this has been made more efficient because of The Umbrella Final Agreement and that relationship with First Nations governments, public government and the devolution transfer agreement, which transferred federal powers to Yukon when it comes to the administrative control of lands, waters and resources.
I could go into great detail — and I know you want to get on with your proceedings — about all of the results of that, but let me quickly run over a couple of things that I feel are important.
First, Yukon dramatically changed economically over growth, and a lot of that was because of the decision-making ability for Yukon that was more efficient, receptive and expeditious when it comes to such things as development of resources.
Second, we developed an important relationship through these agreements with First Nations and also with the federal government, and that includes our fiscal relationship. I want to point out that, through the devolution transfer agreement, Yukon does retain some share of the revenues that evolve from resources, for example, but we also return a great deal to the Government of Canada.
One can easily conclude, then, that devolution is an instrument to help the territories — indeed in this case the Northwest Territories, as Yukon already has — to be less dependent on the federal government and to make a larger contribution to the overall federation.
It wasn't that long ago that the territories, when it came to national processes, were merely dinner guests. Today, all three territories are active members of The Council of the Federation, with the Northwest Territories on the cusp of achieving devolution. This can only improve the overall situation of governance in the N.W.T., as it has in the Yukon.
There are some problems; it is not all a positive result. I think Yukon, over time, has learned that some of the problem areas of devolution, albeit significant, do not in any way overcome the benefits. In other words, the benefits of devolution far outweigh the problems that we have experienced.
By way of example — and I want to make this good point on behalf of the N.W.T. because they will face many of the same issues — when it comes to forest fire, the result of the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement was based on the historical cost of fighting fire. It did not include the ever-increasing risk, year by year, of wildfire in the Yukon. That is a distinct issue that should be kept in mind through your deliberations.
Also, there is a question of the Crown and right. Now, I am not talking about provinces here; I am talking about the legal question, if you will, of a Crown and right for Yukon, and in this case, for the Northwest Territories.
The other issue that we noticed in the Yukon and are still working on is the clear establishment of our offshore northern boundaries, whether it is the 141st meridian between Yukon and Alaska or the clear delineation of our offshore boundary with the N.W.T. No matter what, at the end of the day, I can tell you from the Yukon experience since 2001, in the implementation of devolution in 2003 and the ongoing implementation of Yukon's Umbrella Final Agreement and the land claims, it has been a positive experience that is important for the Yukon and it has resulted in great benefit for the overall territory.
In closing, it is important to recognize that the Yukon has in the past and will continue to support the territories, both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, in achieving the same result. It all comes down to the establishment of good governance, responsible governance and administrative control for northerners.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fentie. We will now move to Mr. Cameron. You have a presentation, of which I believe everyone has a copy. The floor is yours.
Kirk Cameron, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation to speak with you this evening regarding the Yukon experience with devolution and lessons learned that may be of use to your work on Bill C-15.
It is indeed an honour, and I am particularly pleased that two fellow northerners are on this committee, Senators Patterson and Sibbeston, both of whom I have known and worked with off and on for many years.
There are three main messages I would like to offer in my opening remarks. First, this work on Bill C-15 is very much about nation-building, as other witnesses and committee members have said in earlier meetings on this topic. When addressing the jurisdiction of territorial governments and their structures, we are not dealing simply with administrative agencies of the federal government, as I have heard argued in the past. The courts have recognized that in structure and action, as well as their recognition in Canada's Constitution and the Charter, we are dealing with "infant provinces" or geopolitical entities with what are referred to as "sovereign-like legislative character." Recently, academics studying the evolution of territories have referred to them as "quasi provinces" in a number of publications.
I would argue, therefore, that the work before you is about the creation of the new and next generation of province-like jurisdictions in Canada based on a partnership, if you will, between Aboriginal people and public government. Given the importance of this partnership, I emphasize that this is a significant departure from the historical journey of Canada that resulted in the current federation with its 10 provinces, with their structures and powers set out in the Constitution.
Now, why is this new generation of "provinces-in-the-making" so different? The three territories are structurally about cooperative institutions that are negotiated outcomes of modern treaties and associated self-government arrangements. Indeed, the Yukon Act and the new Northwest Territories Act, which are really the "constitutions" of the territories, have provisions that give strength to this principle of governance partnership.
One example is found in clauses 25(1) and 26 in the bill before you. Clause 25 speaks to the consistency between the powers of territories and provinces; territories cannot have more powers than provinces, in effect. Yet clause 26 strays into exclusive federal domain, providing the Northwest Territories Legislature with the ability to exercise ". . . its powers under sections 18 and 19 for the purpose of implementing an Aboriginal land claim agreement or a self-government agreement, make laws that are in relation to the matters coming within class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867." Clearly, a federal power.
In addition, many of the key jurisdictions relating to land and resource management that normally fall under provincial authority in the South are, in Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, addressed in the treaties and implemented through federal legislation to enshrine the elements of the cooperative relationship between Aboriginal and public government.
In the Yukon, two key examples are the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board and the Water Board. In the Northwest Territories, as you well know, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and its various institutions of environmental assessment, such as the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, the MVEIRB, and the land and water boards, are captured in the bill before you today.
My second message is that what you are working on today is not an end point in the maturation of the Northwest Territories. If anything, it is the start of a long period of "settling in," if you will, as the new partnership between Aboriginal and public government matures following the implementation of devolution on April 1.
In a post-devolution world, most lands and surface and subsurface resources will be owned or controlled by either Aboriginal organizations or by the territorial government. Over the coming years, we can expect many debates regarding the pace and direction of land and resources development in the Northwest Territories.
Indeed today, in the Yukon, a highly contentious debate continues regarding the Peel Watershed Land Use Plan. It will take considerable time and I anticipate more than one court case before this matter is resolved. But this is as it should be. Matters falling within the region should be debated and decided upon within the region, no matter how difficult the challenge.
The third point I wish to make is that there are no easy comparisons between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The land claims are very different; the ways in which the assessment and resources laws have been treated are very different; and the structural outcomes of the Aboriginal governance frameworks that were created in the Yukon through the treaties and self-government agreements are not the same as those found in the agreements with the Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho.
In many cases in the Northwest Territories, self-government negotiations are not complete. You also do not have a framework agreement, like the Yukon's Umbrella Final Agreement, to help bring clarity to questions of consistency among regions of the territory.
Despite these differences, there are two tests I would recommend be brought to your deliberations as you work your way through this bill with its complex array of associated consequential amendments to other legislation.
The first test: Does the part of legislation under scrutiny serve to enhance the partnership between Aboriginal organizations and the territorial government?
The second test: Without jeopardizing the interest in Aboriginal public government relations, does the part under scrutiny further the national interest in supporting the development of territorial governments with the same suite of authorities exercised by provinces within Canada? In other words, does this result in moving what would normally be considered province-like decision-making to the territorial level? I leave those two questions before you.
I have two final points to make. First, I am pleased to see the sunset clause relating to clause 4(3) in the bill. Here is a very good example of finding the balance between the two tests I have outlined. Following a 10-year period, it removes the federal government's capacity to direct the Northwest Territories commissioner, essentially their lieutenant-governor, on matters falling within the executive authority of the territorial government. The 10 years, however, gives comfort to Aboriginal groups without land claims completed that the federal government can exercise extraordinary discretion in ensuring land claims can be concluded.
We had a similar clause in the Yukon Act. It was most useful in providing a level of comfort to First Nations negotiating their land claims from 2003 to 2013, at which time that section of the Yukon Act was repealed. I note that during the intervening 10 years section 4(3) of the Yukon Act was not needed to support the negotiations, but it was there if needed.
Finally, there is one small matter relating to Yukon that is still outstanding and the former premier mentioned this in his opening remarks. The question of drawing a boundary line offshore in the Beaufort Sea, between Yukon and the Northwest Territories, was not resolved when the Nunavut Act was passed in 2003. It would appear that Bill C-15 does not address the matter either. It seems to me that the opportunity is before you to clarify that the waters offshore of Yukon are associated with Yukon and not the Northwest Territories, thus reflecting a principle of association applying to all provinces with maritime waters — the Northwest Territories and to Nunavut.
It may also be useful in some small way in reinforcing Canada's position regarding the offshore boundary line between Canada and the United States in the Arctic Ocean. Clarifying the association of Yukon to this offshore area in the Beaufort will bring our sub-national government most closely affected by the boundary line into the discussion. Canada may wish to give this some consideration as this bill progresses.
On that point, I will conclude my remarks, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron. We will now go to questions and I will start with the deputy chair from Alberta, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks to both of you. These were very informative presentations, clearly based on a lot of experience, and I think we can take a lot from that.
I encourage both of you to answer this question, but I would refer specifically to comments made by Mr. Cameron with respect to the relationship between the new government, the devolved government and the regions, and I'm taking that in various ways to read "and the settled regions."
One of the issues raised last week by representatives from the Sahtu, the Gwich'in and the Tlicho was the question of their losing their specific regional land and water boards, review boards under their land claims, that they would be assumed or subsumed into the super board. I'm wondering whether I've described that adequately to make sense. If I have, could you comment on how that relationship has been worked out for land and water review in the Yukon and what implications that has for what might occur in the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Cameron: Yes. Thank you for the question, senator. It's a pretty complex matter. Initially I'd like to emphasize the point that we're talking about two different regions and two different histories when it comes to the settlement of land claims, and then the evolution of devolution within both of those contexts.
We don't have the same structure under a Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that they do in the Northwest Territories. In the Yukon, the environmental assessment process is set up under the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, which is also federal legislation. It provides for some regional complexities in the environmental assessment process that do break it down somewhat but, at the same time, do not give the same degree of authorities that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act do to those regional entities.
My understanding is that under the land claims in the Northwest Territories, whether you're talking about Sahtu or Gwich'in, it does contemplate — I've heard the term "super board" used — one that covers the full context of the Northwest Territories. I'm sure federal and territorial lawyers have been very careful with this one and they've looked at it from a point of view of "Are we doing something that's constitutionally and legally correct?" in this case, with a section 35 protected treaty. The answer, it would appear, is that that is correct.
Now that takes the legal side of the question off the table, but what about the political side? The political side is where I think the realities come together. I understand that Premier McLeod has done yeoman's service in talking it through with many of these regional organizations, to try to work out agreements and understandings on how the board would play itself out, if you will, when matters of development take place exclusively within one of those regions.
I understand that there are compromises within the bill and with the contemplated new pieces of legislation that will allow some elasticity as to how to form review panels and so on, when matters come before the overall super board, but which only apply to one particular region.
The premier has also — and, again, this is politics more than it is law — agreed to establish an intergovernmental council, which I believe is the term he uses. Again, that is a political vehicle through which he can have ongoing dialogue with all of the interests throughout the Mackenzie Valley — the ones with settled claims and also those without.
This is where it gets really complex because the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act does not apply to the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, which was a land claim agreement, a treaty put in place in 1984 I believe, and did not contemplate that there would be any kind of a super structure for the entire Northwest Territories. Therefore we now have a kind of patchwork of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho settled, and Dehcho — a very big and important resource area within the Northwest Territories — not settled. We have superimposed on that Metis agreements that are also important, as well as some of the Treaty 8 areas that do not agree with a comprehensive land claim. You can quickly see that it's such a complicated maze that trying to create a single entity to do justice to Mr. McCrank's argument, which is "Let's get a process in place that's going to get development on the rails," if you will, becomes incredibly complicated.
I think the premier has done yeoman's service in trying to get as many of those parties as possible to a table where all of that debate can occur at the regional level.
The Chair: Mr. Fentie, would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Fentie: The best way for me to respond to that is to say we have to recognize that these instruments must be fluid in nature. The Yukon, through its environmental assessment processes and dealing with the umbrella board — if you want to call it a super board, so be it — and district offices has run into challenges along the way. I think those challenges can be resolved to a great degree within the regulatory package that goes with our act itself, but these are things you learn as you go.
It also comes down to whether the benefits of devolution, this process and this super board in the N.W.T. outweigh whatever problems and challenges may arise, and I think we can conclude from the Yukon experience that it will.
Lastly, I've got to tell you that there's a big difference between Yukon and the N.W.T. in governance. In the N.W.T. there's a consensus form of government. Yukon is partisan, political in nature, and I think there are some distinct differences between our umbrella final agreement, this framework blueprint that establishes how First Nation governments and public government will interact together when it comes to lands, waters, and resources in the Yukon, versus the type of agreements that are in the Northwest Territories.
There's probably going to be different and unique challenges in the N.W.T. from those in the Yukon, but in general terms these things can be resolved as you implement and proceed with devolution. We must remember that it has to be fluid in nature.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank the very knowledgeable witnesses who are giving us the benefit of the Yukon experience. It's great to see you, Mr. Fentie and Mr. Cameron. I've always thought that the Yukon had blazed a path on issues of devolution for the N.W.T., and I'm hoping Nunavut will, in the fullness of time, be next. Getting the benefit of your experience is really helpful.
I'd like to ask some practical questions about implementation. The first is an issue that's come up in our hearings so far: the business of centralization and decentralization. By the way, I don't like the term "super board." I think it's pejorative. It's about decentralization, I guess.
When you implemented devolution in Yukon, did you pay attention to the need to have a presence of public servants in the regions? I think you referred to district offices. Could either of you elaborate on that, how important that was and how that actually unfolded as opposed to everything coming out of Whitehorse?
Mr. Fentie: I'll just quickly state, senator, that I think that very issue was envisioned in the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, and in other instruments. It's always been a challenge in the Yukon with relation to our small, outlying communities versus the much larger community and capital in Whitehorse, but I think our experience overall has been a good one. It's more about empowering our communities and regions versus the concept of decentralization. I think there's a long way to go, of course, in improving the situation, but you have to recognize in many instances you don't want to get into duplicating governance and other processes.
In the Yukon, we took the approach of being more efficient, more streamlined and effective in our processes. We are learning from that, but I think it's something that can be addressed very positively for all concerned.
The Chair: Mr. Cameron, would you like to add something to that?
Mr. Cameron: Thank you, senator, for that question. Really, devolution in the Yukon Territory didn't contemplate a decentralization component, unlike the creation of Nunavut, which had decentralization as a main theme within the Nunavut claim as well as in the work leading up to the creation of Nunavut. Likewise, Premier McLeod, I believe, in their devolution agreement, has commitment to decentralization of the model to some extent.
Yukon didn't really have that. We saw some movement of bureaucrats from Main Street to Second Avenue but, other than that, there wasn't anything really significant outside of the territory.
I have to make it clear that the one decentralization or enhancement, I suppose, of programming at the regional or community level came more out of the implementation of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act with the creation of the designated offices. That wasn't the outcome of devolution in the Yukon Territory.
So the short answer is decentralization, per se, wasn't really a main theme within the DTA negotiations or its implementation.
Senator Patterson: If I may, related to that, the transfer of federal public servants to territorial public servants, I was amazed that N.W.T. reportedly had an almost 100 per cent take-up of the existing federal public servants to switch over to the N.W.T.
I don't think you had it quite as easy or successful in Yukon, not to be critical. I wonder if you could describe how that issue was resolved, and I don't think you had the full take-up. Is there something we can learn from your experience?
Mr. Cameron: Yes, the take-up is staggering. I was amazed when I heard that it was close to 100 per cent in the deal, if you will, that was worked out with public servants moving across.
That was a major part of the negotiations, leading up to the conclusion of the devolution transfer agreement, was getting the human resources component completed. There were very different employment packages that were on the table for the employees coming over. There were issues relating to how their positions would be cast in the levels within the territorial government when moving over from the federal government, a lot of discussion and debate about those aspects. That resulted in me actually being somewhat surprised. I was the deputy minister responsible at the time we were completing the devolution agreement, and I was quite surprised that we got to the number that we did, which I think was in the 70-75 per cent range. The former premier may want to clarify that. I'm not sure if that number is quite accurate. But I thought that was pretty good. I thought if we got 50 we would be doing quite well.
We were contemplating that there would be adjustments necessary. Sometimes new blood is a good thing, but I would argue that this "dis-success" is a really major part of the success in the implementation of devolution in the Northwest Territories. What you've got is the continuity of those individuals who understand how all of that legislation, all of that policy, all that regulatory framework, fits together today. They're coming across with that knowledge to the new government. To my way of thinking, it's a great coup to have those people coming over with that knowledge base.
Mr. Fentie: Thank you for the question, senator.
Mr. Cameron hit the nail on the head. This was a major challenge in the Yukon when it came to addressing the situation and the transfer of federal employees from that culture of government over to the Yukon.
Maybe it comes down to this point: This was the first devolution transfer in the territories. There might have been a lot of hesitancy with federal employees at that time about making this transfer, being unaware and unsure of what would be the outcome.
I think we transferred 200-some employees. Officials like Mr. Cameron and others, like Mr. Angus Robertson, found ways to resolve the issues that the federal employees had put on the table at the time, and I think now that we've gone through that experience — by the way, we had a smooth transition and a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that so many federal employees came over to the Yukon side. So when we began implementing devolution that transition was fairly smooth, and we thank them for that.
I think it comes down to that this was the first agreement as it pertains to Yukon, and now that the federal employees and others have witnessed what transpired in the Yukon through implementation and devolution, they might be somewhat more comfortable in making that transition from the federal system into the territorial one.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Fentie, as you pointed out, since 2002 it's been a period of tremendous economic growth in the Yukon, and of course that's a wonderful thing. I take it in that period of time there's been a rather dramatic increase in private-sector investment in the Yukon. I'm wondering about the extent to which you would attribute that increased investment and economic growth to the fact that devolution occurred in the Yukon in 2002.
Mr. Fentie: Of course, we cannot say that because of devolution occurring in the Yukon we suddenly took off economically, experienced great growth and private-sector investment and so on, but we can reasonably conclude that having devolution occur and the decision-making processes that comes with devolution in Yukon did contribute a great degree to our success. For example, with pre-devolution, the overall investment in the mining sector, as far as exploration in the Yukon — this was pre-2002 — was somewhere less than $10 million. By 2010, that investment had increased to over $400 million. A lot of that has to do with the fact that not only was devolution helpful in that regard, but so was the land claim itself.
You have to understand these two agreements have a lot of synergy that resulted in these accomplishments for the Yukon. One of those is the replacement of CEAA by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. I think that made a tremendous contribution to expediting our decision-making in terms of permits and other accesses to land and resources.
Can there be improvement? Yes. However, I can say from my experience from 2002 to 2011 that making our own decisions in the Yukon versus having those same decisions being made in Ottawa resulted in a vast improvement in the overall situation in the Yukon, not just economically but in other areas such as with environmental and social improvements.
Senator Wallace: Have you found that devolution improved the relationship between the territorial government and the Aboriginal communities?
Mr. Fentie: I think that relationship was firmly established first by the Umbrella Final Agreement. Then you have to recognize that in the Yukon, with the negotiation of the devolution transfer agreement, the First Nations played a major role in that agreement being developed over time. The Yukon devolved not in one big bang but in certain areas along the way, devolving education, health and social services.
One of the areas where we were very successful — and I call it the development of common regimes — is the Yukon Oil and Gas Act, YOGA. These are all pieces of the overall process that resulted in improving that relationship between public government and First Nations governments. We have to remember that Yukon has a pretty clear framework or blueprint, if you will, that defines that relationship. Where we get into problems and challenges is the interpretation of those agreements and what is intended with regard to the relationship.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fentie, thank you very much for your presentations.
Mr. Cameron, you have indicated that the question of drawing a boundary line offshore in the Beaufort Sea between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories was not resolved when the Nunavut Act was passed in 2003.
Is that a current source of conflict among the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the federal government? Are there ongoing discussions with regard to this issue? What can you tell us? You made that comment, and I agree that it could be a concern. Where are we now?
Mr. Cameron: Thank you for that question. I don't think it's really up there as a major point of contention either between the Northwest Territories or the Yukon governments, nor do I think that it is something that is being pressed by Yukon to resolve. My suggestion is more in the sense of constitution-building and getting things settled, why not do so given that this legislation provides an opportunity to possibly solve what has been a bit of an outstanding question?
We couldn't find a way to resolve it when we were working on the Nunavut Act. I was with the federal government in Indian and Northern Affairs in the early 1990s when we were tackling the drafting of the new act. We couldn't resolve it when the Yukon Act was discussed with Canada in 2000-02, and I am suggesting why not give it one more try. I don't sense it's a great and contested issue.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Fentie, do you have any concerns?
Mr. Fentie: Senator, I can add to that by saying that we never had in my time, from 2002 to 2011, any issues or challenges with the N.W.T. with regard to that.
The Yukon does have an arrangement, however, with Canada in jointly developing what I would call a management framework for offshore of the Yukon. I think overall, Yukon is not really pressing the issue. I think it's more a matter of clarity. It would benefit all of Canada to clearly define those boundaries, specifically between the N.W.T. and the State of Alaska, with regard to the offshore waters of Yukon, as they have with provinces and with the other territories.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, Mr. Cameron, for being with us.
The question raised another point. Right now, the interest is aligned, people love the direction, everybody wishes to get there and everyone is largely in favour of this, with some exceptions.
However, I would worry in a couple years from now, once people have their defined legal rights, you will see all kinds of disputes relative to the interpretation of different issues. What are those issues? What is it that we should be warned about today whereby there will be serious litigation or maybe even harsh relationships? Are there issues out there that we should be concerned about?
Mr. Cameron: Sure. It will be the same list of issues and matters of complaint and contention that faced British Columbia, Alberta, all the way through this country, more so around resource development, the Northern Gateway project, building a pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast. All of these kinds of contentious issues certainly the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut will face because there will be differing views on the pace, direction and kind of resource development that will occur in the future in Canada.
The big difference here is that the great debate will take place in the region among the players that ultimately are affected the most by the decisions that are being made. That's why I'm such a big fan and supporter of devolution for all three territories, as a matter of fact, because it shifts the debate. It takes it away from what has often been referred to as a distant Ottawa with an awful lot of other things on their plate to the local governments that are most affected by the outcome of the decisions that are being made. That is where I see devolution as being particularly effective.
Senator Massicotte: Are the interests properly aligned to make sure people are motivated to finally reach a solution? Or will we have deadlock consistently?
Mr. Cameron: As I suggested, I think Premier McLeod is doing a great job in pulling together a good discussion in the Northwest Territories around implementing devolution. He is working overtime to try to put that all into place. It's about the political dialogue. He's doing it very well.
I would argue that in the current-day reality around the Peel Watershed, it is a little bit of a testy go in the Yukon Territory, but isn't that the nature of the political reality that we face anywhere in our country? I would say that it will be the result of that ongoing dialogue into the future that will basically answer your question, depending on what the resource issue is.
Senator Massicotte: So there is nothing right now we should do it to minimize or find a trigger to resolve those issues? Just let it go?
Mr. Cameron: If anything, I'd say get out of the way and let that start rolling because they will figure it out themselves, as we have done. As Mr. Fentie said, in the Yukon over the last 10 years, we figured out a lot of stuff on the ground, even though today we are still dealing with matters of contention.
The Chair: Mr. Fentie, would you like to add anything to that question?
Mr. Fentie: I would submit, senator, that gridlock, as you envision, is more apt to occur if the decision-making power remained in the hands of the federal government in Ottawa.
I think when you become a master in your own house you are much more readily able to find solutions to the challenges that arise. And there will be challenges. But when local people are involved in making decisions that affect their daily lives, and they are doing it in their region versus awaiting some far-away entity in Ottawa to make that same decision, I think you will find that people become much more comfortable with that process. That is something we have experienced in Yukon. We have run into challenges, but we found ways to get through those challenges and find solutions.
My experience, however, senators, I can tell you usually these challenges are the result of interpretation. I think we all understand what that is; that can happen anywhere. Sometimes courts will be asked to clearly define the question put before the court with regard to an interpretation of any degree.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fentie.
Senator Patterson: I would appreciate it if the witnesses could comment on the resource revenue-sharing arrangement in Yukon. We have a split in the GNWT in this proposed bill where Ottawa will retain 50 per cent of the revenues; Aboriginal stakeholders in the NWT will receive 25 per cent of the GNWT's 50 per cent share.
Could you give us the evolution of this resource revenue-sharing piece in Yukon? I understand there was a change made from the initial arrangement. I think that would be helpful to the committee.
Mr. Cameron: I will be a little glib here, and I will say, "I don't care." The financial arrangements are about the short- to medium-term future to help strengthen the capacity of the territorial government to work with Aboriginal governments to get on with the business of building business, to create the shape, direction and pace of development in a way that makes the most sense for the Northwest Territories. Yukon, the same thing goes.
This was one of the things that spurred me on to run for city council in Whitehorse because so much of the economic engine of the Yukon Territory is based in Whitehorse. So much of its future will be driven by what Whitehorse does and what the territory generally does in terms of development.
To my way of thinking, my objective is ultimately we won't worry about what that royalty-sharing or revenue-sharing agreement looks like, because 50 or 60 or 70 per cent of our GDP will cover the cost of running the levels of program and service that right now we rely 70 per cent on Ottawa's transfer to cover.
I want to get us there. That is the vision that I bring to the table. These kind of technical arrangements are very useful. They help set a financial framework that can help the territorial government move forward. In the Yukon Territory, I don't know if we ever reached the $3 million cap on the revenue-sharing agreement that we have in place; so my hope is that we do that and that we exceed it immensely so that at some point in time this formula goes away.
The Chair: Mr. Fentie, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Fentie: In the Yukon, it is fair to say that a lot of time and effort was spent on negotiating that fiscal relationship on resource revenue sharing. At the end of the day, Yukon decided to go with devolution and worry about that over the fullness of time.
I think we have to recognize that that resource revenue-sharing arrangement is not in isolation of our overall fiscal relationship with the federal government. I say that because the development of resources in the North, and whatever retention of resource revenues stay in the North, and the rest flows to the federal government is fair. We all believe in that.
Second, our fiscal relationship with regard to that, there is a calculation of own-source revenue in the territories whereby 70 cents of every dollar flows back to Canada. Mr. Cameron alluded to this.
These are the steps in getting the North to be less dependent on that transfer in Ottawa and more independent and self-sufficient. But it will not happen overnight just because of a devolution agreement. It will take time for that to develop and evolve; there will be changes along the way.
I might add that the Northwest Territories' revenue-sharing agreement is better than the Yukon's; so Yukon may be knocking on the federal minister's door in the future to achieve what I would call a "Fair Nation's Clause." However, it is something that is very complex, and it is not in isolation of other fiscal arrangements with the federal government.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fentie and Mr. Cameron. We appreciate both of you taking time out of your busy lives to come and give us your viewpoints on this. We will see you again. Take care.
We will take a brief pause as we go to our next witness by video conference from Calgary; so we have to do a little work there. Thank you again, gentlemen.
Mr. Fentie: Thank you, senators.
The Chair: Welcome to the second half of our meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We are continuing our examination of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories devolution bill. It gives me great pleasure to welcome Mr. Neil McCrank, Q.C., coming to us by video conference from Calgary.
Mr. McCrank was appointed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development as a special representative for the Northern Regulatory Improvement Initiative in 2007. In 2008, Mr. McCrank released his final report entitled Road to Improvement: The Review of Regulatory Systems Across the North, which contained proposed options and recommendations for improving the regulatory regime and advancing the Northern Regulatory Improvement Initiative.
Prior to this role, Mr. McCrank had extensive experience as a negotiator and lawyer. In particular, his experience in the public sector included working as the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General for the Alberta Department of Justice, as well as the Chairman of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. McCrank. I understand you have some opening remarks, after which we will go to some questions and answers. The floor is yours, sir.
Neil McCrank, Q.C., as an individual: Good evening, senators, and ladies and gentlemen in the room as well.
Thank you for this opportunity to be with you this evening. I apologize that I am not with you in person. Clerk Lynn Gordon and I tried to work it out but it just wasn't going to happen for us so I am on the video and I hope that works out for us all. It is a pleasure to be with you and I hope I can add something to this very important initiative.
I have a few brief opening remarks. You have covered some of them, to the extent that I was appointed by Minister Strahl in 2007 to look at the regulatory systems north of 60 and to suggest any improvements that I could promote.
I looked at all three territories but basically focused on the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories. In the course of the four or five months that I spent in the North, I had over 100 meetings with various groups. They were local communities, Aboriginal groups and signatories to the land claim agreements. There was much involvement with both the federal and territorial governments and, of course, some of the regulatory bodies that were the subject of the review.
As you point out, I provided my report to Minister Strahl in July 2008. I have a copy of it; I assume you have copies of it and have had an opportunity to read them if you have that time.
I should point out that one of the things that was completed before I finished my report was that I had a round table discussion in Yellowknife in March 2008, during which all of the comments that were made to me and all of the ideas were explored at this round table, attended by about 100 people in the Explorer Hotel. All the parties interested in this issue were invited. Not all attended, but those who attended all spoke clearly about what they thought should be done. I hope the report that I completed would reflect the collective wisdom of all who were around that table.
There were a series of individual recommendations made, which I won't spend much time on, that referred to all three of the areas. Most of those recommendations, in one form or another, had been made in previous reports on the northern communities, some of which had been implemented partially and some of which had not been implemented that I saw the need to review again.
For instance, the northern Major Projects Management Office, of which there is one in existence in the southern part of Canada, helps industry and the public understand the system relating to applications. A similar kind of office has now been opened in the North.
The major recommendations that I made, which are probably the subject matter of what you want to ask me about, were the recommendations relating to restructuring of the regulatory system. We will come to the details of it in a minute, but there were two themes that I tried to follow in making those recommendations. The first and an important one is that local involvement in decision making on resource development is absolutely necessary. It's part of the co-management theory that came through the treaties and I tried to adhere to that when making my recommendations.
The second theme was that there was a need and a desire to have responsible and orderly development of the resources in the North. Those decisions should be made in the public interest of all residents of Canada.
Following the completion of that report I have really had no involvement in this issue at all, other than I appeared before the House of Commons Committee on Aboriginal and Northern Affairs in July 2009, I believe, and I appeared last week in Yellowknife at the same committee meeting and made a presentation. I, of course, have kept my interest in this area and have read the proceedings, both before this committee that I am speaking to tonight and the House of Commons committee, and I've watched the development over the last four or five years.
Thank you, honourable senators. Those are my opening remarks.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McCrank. We will now go to questions and I will begin with the deputy chair, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr. McCrank. I think we crossed paths in my days in the Alberta legislature. It is good to see you and thanks for doing this.
Mr. McCrank: I believe we did, sir, and it is good to speak with you again.
Senator Mitchell: I think it's a poor choice of words and I know Senator Patterson has made that point, however, for lack of a better word, we're all interested in the relationship of the "super board" that will review land and water, the relationship of that board to the existing boards — soon not to be existing boards under this regime, apparently — that are currently in place under land claims agreements.
My first question would be: How is it that this legislation could overrule a land claim? What is your general thought about whether or not regional boards would make some sense; at least some sub-boards under a super board?
Mr. McCrank: I guess I could answer that in a number of ways. The first question is if Bill C-15 were to be introduced and the amendments made, as suggested, would the regulatory body that resulted from that be more effective? I think my answer to that is yes.
Now, how that comes about from a legal point of view, I'm not going to comment on that other than to say that I made it clear in my report that whatever changes were going to be contemplated so that you don't look like you're overriding a treaty would have to be made after some significant consultation with the Aboriginal communities.
I really started that process, and when I mentioned earlier that we had a round-table discussion whereby these concepts were discussed, I mean that. The Aboriginal communities were there, they understood the concept. Not all, but some were very supportive of making some changes to the regulatory system, including the amalgamation, the merger, the dismantling, whatever one wants to call it, of the regional boards that are currently in existence to make one larger land and water board.
Keep in mind that there are, at the moment, three plus the Mackenzie Valley, which looks after the non-treaty areas. Were these treaties to be settled, as they will be, there may be two or three or more land water boards that develop after that. You would end up with a significant series of land and water boards in what is a fairly large geographic area but a fairly small area, population-wise.
The answer is I'm not making a comment on whether you're overriding. I don't think this is overriding the treaties. I think this would be working within the Aboriginal communities to see if they would work.
Whether or not regional representation on the centralized "super board," as you used the term, would work, in my opinion it would. I think there would be a better ability to have the right composition of the super board.
One of the comments I made in my report is that there is a capacity issue in populating all of these land and water boards with the kind of professional — and I don't mean lawyers and engineers — approach you need from the plethora of regulatory bodies that are there. If you amalgamate them into one, I think you'll have a better chance to populate them properly, but you would still have regional representation, as I understand the way Bill C-15 has been developed.
Senator Black: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that my friend Neil McCrank is one of the most distinguished public servants that Alberta has seen in a generation, and I have enjoyed a strong professional and personal relationship with him. It's wonderful to see you here, and thank you for the tremendous work you've done.
Mr. McCrank, in your report, as I understand it, you ultimately gave two recommended approaches to this solution. One, as is being promoted now, is the one board, as constituted. The other was, I thought, a very interesting proposal whereby administrative functions would be devolved to the regions that exist and they would feed up to the — I hate the expression "super board," but that's what it's being labelled, really for an appeal process, a decision-making and appeal process.
Can you comment on, if you can, why the second approach has not been adopted here?
Mr. McCrank: First of all, Senator Black, thank you very much for your introduction, and it's always been great to work with you in the past. You and I have been at many functions in the most recent past, but you're always so much in demand that I don't get my way through to have a chat with you, but it's great to see you again.
In terms of the two recommendations, they were made on a parallel basis, and after much discussion with the communities in the North, some of whom were concerned about the fact that they wouldn't have any involvement in the decision making at all if it were a super board.
Actually, when I look at Bill C-15, the way it has been structured, it appears that they are going to try to have regional representation on the super board, plus they were going to have or may have regional offices in the sense of field offices to have a local presence.
I think that, to some extent, is a bit of an adoption of option 2. Option 2, in my own view, is the weaker version of the two. It was there so that if it turned out that the opposition locally to having any super board was so enormous, that there would be an ability of the government to move in that direction.
As I say, I think that eventually one would, even if you adopted the second option, wind up with option 1, with the super board looking after certainly everything quasi-judicial and probably most of the decision making. But it was an attempt to find some middle ground, should there be one that was needed.
Senator Black: We've heard a tremendous amount of testimony over the last week, week and a half, from various First Nations communities who seem very unhappy. They feel they're going to be excluded, under this model, from consultation, which is certainly what your recommendation number 2 was trying to address, the importance of that. How do you react to that?
Mr. McCrank: Senator Black and other senators, that was clearly evident when I had my consultations: That was of significant concern.
My attempt to respond to that, which hasn't necessarily been totally accepted by the communities, is that local involvement comes in the resource development process at different times, and my own submission is the most important time for local involvement in the decision making is at the land-use planning stage. When the decision is made as to whether or not there should be any development in an area, I'm totally supportive of the notion that the people locally, who live with it every day, should make the final decision on that tissue. And if they want to carve off the entire Northwest Territories from development, I think that's within their right.
But once the decision is made by the land-use planning authorities, in conjunction with the communities, to allow development in an area, the regulatory system that must kick in is much different than having only local political involvement, if you will. It involves looking at the professional approaches to the economic, environmental, societal, engineering and public safety issues, all of which require a certain in-depth understanding and knowledge of the issue.
If you're going to have a sour gas well, and Senator Black and I know from Alberta that sour gas wells need a certain professional approach to them to make sure that, in the public interest, they're safe in the final analysis. That's where I think the regulatory body can add value to the process. The local involvement will have come at an earlier stage as to whether there should be any involvement at all. Actually, even with the structure that is being proposed by the super boards that would have some regional representatives on the board, or one at least from each board, there would be further opportunity for local involvement to be brought to the table.
Senator Black: Thank you, Mr. McCrank. I look forward to seeing you soon in Calgary.
Mr. McCrank: Thank you, Senator Black. Me as well.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us. I want to clarify. We're all talking about the same thing, but when you answered Senator Black you gave the impression initially that everybody agreed with your recommendations, but now I sense that's not the case. They never did agree with the super board, but you felt irrespectively, probably for good reason, to maintain your recommendation. Did they agree or not with that, and did they change your mind?
Mr. McCrank: Senator Massicotte, some agreed and some didn't. I can't tell you that at the round-table discussion there was 100 per cent agreement on every issue. There were some Aboriginal communities, in the private meetings I had with some of the Aboriginal groups, wherein I recall one of them saying to me that based on what they saw with the current regulatory system, there should be bold action and no prisoners taken.
So there was agreement on some of the issues. I'm not saying there was 100 per cent agreement on any issue. Perhaps there was 100 per cent agreement on an issue such as that the minister should be faster in making his appointments. There would be 100 per cent agreement there, but beyond that, when it came to the contentious issues like restructuring, there was a consensus of opinion, in my view, around the table that it was required, but there was certainly not 100 per cent agreement, if that's what the question was.
Senator Massicotte: And how about the super-boards? Was the opposition, as we so hear, voiced? Or, in your mind, was there consensus on that also?
Mr. McCrank: I think there was consensus that there was a need for a change that would bring about a more effective system; and the super-board, if you want to call it that, or one board, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, was clearly on the table. I don't remember anyone taking any significant issue with that concept. The issue they took issue with was whether or not there would still be local involvement in the decision-making, and that's where I think there was debate.
Senator Massicotte: How do you respond to the fact that they think, in their minds, what is occurring is against the spirit of the land claims? You can argue about certain paragraphs. They say that was not the intent of the spirit of the land claims. How do you respond to that?
Mr. McCrank: As I mentioned to Senator Black, I think the concept of co-management, which is clearly the spirit that comes out of the land claim agreements, can be addressed in a number of ways, one of which is the land use planning process, had to involve them clearly.
I think with respect to the regulatory systems that follow that, there is an exchange between the government and the Aboriginal communities as to how that would be populated, and I think on that basis, the agreements, in my view, would be respected.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. I'm very pleased that we have the opportunity to hear from Mr. McCrank. He mentioned the recommendation he made about establishing the project management office for the North, and I do want to acknowledge that and say that I believe it's been working well.
He also recommended that the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act be completed, and as members of this committee know, that work has already been done and that bill has been passed. So your recommendations in this report have been significant, and I thank you for that.
I want to make one comment about the land claim agreements. With the greatest of respect to Senator Mitchell, I don't think it's at all correct to say that the legislation overrules the land claim agreements. There are clear provisions in the Gwich'in, Sahtu and Tlicho land claim agreement that allow for the creation of one board. They're permissive, and there's reference to consultation, but I think anyone who suggests that the bill — and I guess to that extent Mr. McCrank's report — overrule the land claims agreements. I don't think that's accurate.
You have been asked about your recommendation basically for one board by previous questioners, and I'm not going to cover that ground again, Mr. McCrank. But I'm wondering if you are aware that, I think out of deference to the concerns from Aboriginal governments that they should have input on their region, I wonder if you could comment on an amendment that was made to the bill that allows for regional panels to be established where development takes place within the settlement area and that that regional panel shall include the regional representative on the one board. I don't like to use the term "super-board."
Do you think that provision might go some way to addressing the concern that I'm sure you've heard about the Aboriginal governments losing their regional boards?
Mr. McCrank: Senator Patterson, first of all, thank you for your comments on the Major Projects Management Office and the Nunavut legislation. I was involved in both of those, and I was pleased to see them adopted.
With respect to the issue that you've raised and the regional panels that might be constructed, I actually don't think that would be a big issue from the point of view of the development of a super-board, if you will.
My own experience as a chairman of a regulatory body is there are opportunities in the course of exercising the proper authority of a regulatory body to construct panels in different ways, and sometimes you need a panel of all engineers. Sometimes you need a panel that would have a farmer on it — I'm thinking of Alberta — or a doctor or a veterinarian. If that amendment is pursued and it allows the regulatory authority to have the ability to have a regional panel, I don't think that would be offensive to what is being proposed in terms of a more centralized body.
This is the other side of it: If it moved back to where it is now and every time there was an application in the Tlicho area, there would be panel members from just the Tlicho area, I think we've missed the mark on trying to put together a regulatory system that will provide some consistency, clarity and understandability with the right capacity to make those decisions.
While I say I don't think the amendment would offend what we're trying to do, I think it would have to be carefully managed following that amendment being put in place.
Senator Patterson: Mr. McCrank, there was a plan to have a comprehensive Dene-Metis land claim up and down the Mackenzie Valley, as you know. There was an agreement in principle reached and signed with the federal government in the 1990s, and unfortunately, that agreement was not ever voted on or ratified. So we ended up with regional land claims up and down the valley, and you referred to three of them that are settled and have their own boards at the moment.
You also talked about the inevitability of land claim settlements being reached in the future with the Metis, the Dehcho, the Akaitcho and perhaps others, and I think our committee is going to hear from some of those other unsettled claims areas. It seems that in your work, you contemplated the day when there could be, I think you said two or three or four or more regional boards.
I wonder if you could elaborate. This bill prevents that from happening. You were recommending clarity and simplicity and the most efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources. I'd like you to comment on the implications of not making a change vis-à-vis those goals of efficient use of resources and efficiency.
Mr. McCrank: Senator Patterson, it's pretty obvious that in your time in the North and in your time as the Premier of the Northwest Territories, you've got an enormous knowledge of that area, and you saw exactly what I was trying to anticipate in making a recommendation for one board.
If all we had were three, maybe one could live with that over time. However, I would expect there would still be many complaints from the users that it was too complex, because you had to go from one area to another and you had a different regulatory scheme.
But you're right. I met with the Akaitcho unit people. I didn't meet with Dehcho; we never could put our schedules together to have a meeting. We had a number contemplated but we didn't get there or the Metis North.
There would be a number of other land and water boards, potentially. I had said up to four. Probably that would be the number. Then we'd end up with seven, and that's an enormously complex regulatory scheme for users to try to use. It's also an enormously complex or difficult arrangement to try to populate that number of regulatory bodies with people who can do the kind of job that we all as Canadians should expect from our regulatory bodies — people who should have a lot of expertise in that area.
You believe I've anticipated with my recommendation that that was part of what my thinking was. You've had that knowledge in your minds for many decades. However, up until the time I met with these bodies in 2008, I did not. They gave me that knowledge in the course of the four or five months I was up there, including the round table. All of that was discussed at that time. We were not all in agreement, but clearly everybody was aware there were some issues to be resolved.
Senator Wallace: Mr. McCrank, in leading up to the preparation of your report, you said you consulted extensively with Aboriginal groups, and I'm sure many other groups in the Northwest Territories. Did you consult directly with private-sector developers and investors to determine what their impressions were of the existing regulatory regime and the extent to which that regime affected their development or investment decisions?
Mr. McCrank: Yes, I did. I met with many of the industry people who were represented in the Northwest Territories, including the mining community and the mining association. I did that, by the way, in the Yukon and Nunavut, as well. I also met with oil-and-gas-energy-related people, most of whom I know in Calgary and Edmonton.
I attended various conferences in Toronto and Vancouver put on by the mining association. I listened to their concerns about the regulatory system in the North. Frankly, they had some serious — I won't call them "horror stories," but almost. I was reminded of this last week when I was in Yellowknife regarding a mine that was on the border of Yukon and N.W.T. There was a question of how the application process would go. According to what I was told, they gave up on the application process on the N.W.T. side and pursued it on Yukon side. That mine is now in existence and operating.
Therefore, yes, I did meet with many of the industry people who found the business very complicated.
I will share with you my own observation that the very large companies that have huge resources can work their way through any regulatory system, any place, and they do so. It's the more modern organizations that have to turn their resources elsewhere, because they can't afford it on the regulatory system.
Senator Wallace: That is an interesting point, because other than those such as you and Senator Patterson who are very familiar with the development occurring in the North, the rest of us tend to think of only large developers being involved in the North. But as you pointed out, there are small- and medium-sized companies as well, and their ability to work through the regulatory maze can be a major problem.
Mr. McCrank: At one point, I attended a diamond drilling site for a small project north of Yellowknife. They explained to me the process they had gone through to get that drilling site, which was at that point exploratory only. It was extensive.
Let me just share one other element that I did not put in my report. In Nunavut, a major company was proposing a project. They laid out for me the time lines they thought would be included or taken to get to the end product, and it was 14 years from beginning to end. I didn't put it in my report because — and I still think there's probably some truth to what they say — but I didn't talk about that with any regulatory body or with any of the environmental groups because I didn't know enough of the details. I suspect there was overlap that could have been collapsed, but it was still going to be a number of years. I understand that project has been taken off the drawing board.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCrank; you have been very helpful. We've exhausted our questions. I appreciate the great input you have into this and the questions and answers that ensued from that. Thank you for taking time out of your busy life to talk with us about this. Have a good evening.
Mr. McCrank: Thank you, chair and senators, for allowing me to be with you.
(The committee adjourned.)