Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Issue No. 9 - Evidence - November 17, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 17, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met this day at 10:35 a.m. to study and report on the development of a national corridor in Canada as a means of enhancing and facilitating commerce and internal trade.
[English]
Barbara Reynolds, Acting Clerk of the Committee: In the absence of your chair and deputy chair, it is my duty, as your clerk, to officiate for the election of an acting chair. Are there any nominations?
Senator Ringuette: I would nominate Senator Greene.
Ms. Reynolds: Are there any other nominations?
An Hon. Senator: I would second that nomination.
Ms. Reynolds: Honourable senators, Senator Greene has been nominated by Senator Ringuette. Are you ready to adopt this motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Reynolds: I declare that Senator Greene is the acting chair for this meeting and invite him to take the chair.
Senator Stephen Greene (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate the honour, and I will do my best. Am I the acting chair until the chair arrives?
Ms. Reynolds: Yes.
The Acting Chair: Good morning and welcome. My name is Stephen Greene, despite what it says in the front, and I am the chair of this committee at the moment. Today is our seventh meeting on the subject of our work on the development of a national corridor in Canada as a means of enhancing and facilitating commerce and internal trade.
In the first portion of our meeting today, I am pleased to have, from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Sheilagh Murphy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Economic Development; and Bruno Steinke, Director, Consultation and Accommodation Unit, Treaties and Aboriginal Sector.
Thank you for being with us this morning. Please proceed with your opening remarks, after which we will have a question and answer session.
Sheilagh Murphy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Economic Development, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: I'll be making opening remarks, and then we'd be more than happy to entertain your questions.
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak today about the concept of a national corridor, a new multi-modal transportation right-of-way through Canada's North and Near North.
As you know, the Government of Canada has made a commitment to establish a new nation-to-nation relationship and new fiscal relationship with indigenous peoples. This will require that the federal and provincial governments involve indigenous peoples in all aspects and stages of major infrastructure projects. Also, plans and implementation should take into account the needs and priorities of indigenous communities.
[Translation]
For too long, indigenous peoples have felt that they have been on the outside looking in as Canada has developed its national infrastructure and invested in resource development, and have not experienced benefits from such undertakings.
[English]
This has contributed to a situation where indigenous communities, especially northern and isolated communities, tend to experience worse economic and social outcomes compared to non-indigenous communities.
A 2015 report from the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board found that indigenous communities had lower levels of employment, income, and high school, college and university completion, as well as higher rates of reliance on government transfers, and housing that was either overcrowded or in need of major repairs.
Canada must now ensure that indigenous peoples are fully engaged in the process and institutions that determine national success.
[Translation]
The Federal Crown has a fiduciary obligation towards Canada's indigenous peoples. An important component of this obligation is meaningful consultation and accommodation.
[English]
As can you imagine, the concept of a national corridor raises major considerations from an indigenous engagement and consultation perspective. Generally speaking, the engagement issues raised by the concept are similar to those raised by any major project in Canada, where the interests of indigenous peoples must always be considered and addressed. However, given the numbers of indigenous communities that would be engaged in the national corridor process, the scope, scale and complexity of indigenous engagement would undoubtedly be significant.
Consultation can promote open and ongoing dialogue between the Crown and indigenous groups, which advances reconciliation. When done properly, consultation results in strengthened relationships and partnerships with indigenous peoples. Trying to reach agreement between the parties is the objective of consultation and supports the broader reconciliation objectives.
The Government of Canada believes consultation should focus on fostering a dialogue that supports the fair and equitable balancing of rights and interests. Meaningful consultation is grounded in good faith, with a process that is timely, responsive, respectful, reasonable and fair.
In addition to the duty to consult, a major undertaking like a national corridor would need to take into account the different legal regimes that apply to indigenous peoples in different parts of the country. For example, Canadian territory in the North is mostly covered by modern treaties, including the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in Nunavut; the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and lands under the Tlicho, Sahtu Dene and Metis, and Gwich'in agreements in the Northwest Territories; lands under the Na-Cho Nyak Dun and Vuntut Gwitchin agreements in the Yukon; and land claims by the Innu of northeastern Quebec and western Labrador.
Modern treaties in the North are constitutionally protected, legally binding agreements between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples. The land use planning provisions of the northern land claim agreements are legal obligations that must be adhered to.
A national corridor may also pass through reserve lands, where the context is also different. Projects on reserve can face hurdles that may lengthen the timeline and increase the cost of such projects. For instance, the survey fabric is generally less robust on reserve lands, and many First Nations do not have a comprehensive land use plan.
Of course, major projects also have the potential to provide economic benefits to the communities in which they are located. For example, resource development represents an important area of economic development for First Nations. Over 500 Aboriginal communities are situated near large oil, gas, forestry and mining projects.
Over the past few years it has become increasingly clear that the economic, organizational and political success of major infrastructure or resource development projects in Canada relies on involving indigenous communities in the active planning and implementation of a comprehensive and multi-sectoral approach. This isn't just about seeking the support of indigenous peoples; it is about involving them, their governments and institutions in the entire life cycle of these projects and enabling a full spectrum of possible benefits. For example, this could include access to enabling infrastructure, financial participation, employment and business opportunities, and an ongoing role in corridor management.
Increasingly, both Aboriginal leadership and the government see economic development as the means to greater independence and self-determination. By being able to fully participate in and benefit from the Canadian economy, Aboriginal communities, businesses and peoples can build healthier communities, including social and public infrastructure, and advance the nation-to-nation relationship, leading to reconciliation.
[Translation]
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
Senator David Tkachuk (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Do you have any comments, Mr. Steinke?
Ms. Murphy: We're together.
The Chair: I apologize for being late, but I was at a previous committee and we had reported votes right at the end, so I couldn't leave. I understand that while I was gone there was a palace revolt and it didn't matter; there was a new chair.
Welcome to our committee.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentation. I've seen you in our Aboriginal Committee, and I understand the difficulty, sometimes, of dealing with different kinds of communities with different sets of values and different sets of information that they have.
From your point of view, have you even mentioned this to our communities in the North? Is this part of an agenda that they have? Have they been informed that something like this is in the planning stages?
Ms. Murphy: You're talking about a national corridor concept?
Senator Enverga: The national corridor, yes.
Ms. Murphy: I'm not sure how aware communities are. I know that there have been discussions, particularly with Natural Resources Canada. I know that they themselves look at the Mackenzie Valley as a possible corridor for oil and gas development and road development, et cetera, but I can't speak to how well aware northern communities would be.
In terms of First Nations or other indigenous communities, certainly the concept of corridors is there as they look at project development with pipelines and other things. Again, what you're studying, I can't speak to.
Bruno Steinke, Director, Consultation and Accommodation Unit, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: I'll add one other point. In the North, under the land claim agreements there are planning commissions that come under it, and that may be an area that they have looked at. Generally, however, picking up on Sheilagh's point, there's a spectrum of interest in the issue of corridors. Some communities have spoken about it in the past, and others may have not even looked at that issue.
Senator Enverga: Can you see any major obstacle to why this national corridor could happen, or any factors that could limit us from putting this national corridor into the system? Are there any major ones that you can think of at this time?
Ms. Murphy: I think it depends on where you're proposing to place it. It depends on what traditional territory it crosses and what First Nations or Inuit or Metis communities would see themselves as having that as part of their landscape and would want to understand what that would mean for their communities.
As part of your study, I would recommend that you invite Aboriginal organizations to come and address the interest of the committee in the national corridor, where it would be placed and what their interests would be. We've tried to outline a few from the work that we do with communities on an ongoing basis.
Many of them want to be involved in development; they want to be prosperous, and they want to not have poverty in their communities. They view these as opportunities, but they also have rights and interests in making sure it's done in a respectful manner, that there is not going to be damage to the environment and to their traditional practices and culture. So there's a mix there, and I think having a conversation with them is the best way to garner whether there's opposition or not to what you're trying to study and recommend.
The Chair: They want the same thing as everybody else.
Ms. Murphy: They want opportunity and healthy communities.
The Chair: They need gas, transportation and highways.
Senator Wallin: Let me phrase Senator Enverga's question in a slightly different way. Knowing what you know about all the rules and the constitutional and legal obligations of the federal government and the duty to consult, which is often interpreted as veto in the scope of consultation, do you think this is even remotely doable?
Mr. Steinke: Picking up on Sheilagh's response, in our experience, when communities are approached with an idea or a concept of something like a corridor, a pipeline or a mine, at the outset it may sound daunting until you get into the discussions and you understand their interests, and their interests are varying. Some may have an economic interest; for others, their interests may be ensuring the environment is protected, and some are related to the culture.
It's really hard to know which communities and where in the country they will come up saying that, yes, they will support it. I think it is best ask them.
Second, based on their discussions, you'll come out with their common interests. They are interested in it, or not, and here are the reasons why.
Maybe, given Canada's legal framework around legal duty to consult and in modern treaties, maybe there are ways to address their concerns. Maybe there is a way to ensure the environment is protected in the corridor. There might be initial reaction, but once you get into the real substance of the conversation, it may change based on their interests.
Senator Wallin: I guess that's what we're struggling with. We have actually consulted with a wide range of Aboriginal and Native interests. I guess the problem for us, too, as we look at this as the "they'' — there is no they. That's a very broad group of people with very different interests, as you say, depending where they are geographically or what their predisposition is to any development. It's a little hard to figure out how we go to the next step on this, who to negotiate with and whether we choose the federal government because of its constitutional obligation.
Ms. Murphy: The committee will take what it's heard and balance that and make recommendations. Certainly, it's the start of a conversation rather than the end of a conversation. It starts a different process whereby there would need to be continued engagement and consultation; if this was to start to take shape, then there would have to be a process to engage and consult.
What we've learned is that the sooner you involve communities in the design and thinking around something like this, rather than having it all precooked, the better off you are. Because then they can bring in their interests, and you can make adjustments and build their capacity and incorporate their interests as you work through to the fruition of the establishment of a corridor.
It's an ongoing, incremental evolution of a concept. You don't necessarily say, "We don't want to have the concept.'' You have to acknowledge that in getting to the actualization of that, there will be steps along the way when it comes to indigenous peoples that will have to be brought into the planning, design and finalization of the corridor.
Senator Wallin: Yesterday we heard from Jack Mintz, and he was talking about the ways in which people might approach this concept and divide it up into establishing access through a corridor and then separately talking about projects; so it might be a pipeline or the various things.
From your perspective, does that make it any more manageable? Would you suggest that's a good idea, separating the negotiations on those two separate ideas?
Ms. Murphy: It would be related to a corridor or any project. What we're learning, as we engage in things like the environmental review process with communities across this country, is that there is a real desire to look at things not project by project, but on a regional basis, so you can look at cumulative, environmental, social and economic impacts.
The concept of a corridor gets at thinking strategically about the development of a larger land mass that lends itself to regional development, regional planning and cumulative impacts and puts the projects that might occur within that corridor into a broader context, which is something that indigenous communities have been asking for.
The concept is where we see some of the requests coming from communities: Rather than you're going to do a mine and then you're going to do a pipeline and then something over here, why can't we look at the entire region and how it's being developed and manage that as a region?
I would say you'd have to put the projects in the corridor concept. There may be separate negotiations, but understanding at the front end the totality of what would happen in that corridor better equips communities and proponents to design something that works rather than doing it on a piece-by-piece basis. That's been our experience.
Senator Wallin: He is saying there's always going to be projects, obviously. These projects won't all develop simultaneously.
Could you clear the access? Take a corridor, here is roughly where it's going to go, figure out whether or not we can do it because of water, land, environment, polar bears, you name it, and say, okay, we've got a corridor, then negotiate? Just with the costs involved, it's about doing five miles of pipeline and two miles of highway. They may not be contiguous. He was trying to separate it that way.
Ms. Murphy: That's an approach that has merit. You find out if you can have the corridor first, because of what's there geographically in terms of rights, and then the projects can come later.
For sure there's no point in trying to pursue a project if you don't even know whether where you're going to situate it is the right place.
Senator Lang: I'd like to follow up on Senator Wallin's question on consultation, and perhaps that's the question that should be asked: What does it actually mean? Because it seems to have a different interpretation depending on what part of the country you're in, and also in respect to what the project is, and whether or not the First Nations in that particular region are prepared to participate or not.
At the outset, I would like to say that the glass is half full; it's not necessarily half empty. If you take a look across this country — and I'd like to hear your comments on this — there are many First Nations people working within the forestry industry. I saw a figure the other day of 16,000 people. In the mining resource industry throughout this country there are thousands of Aboriginal families relying on resource industries for their livelihood. I think that applies whether it's in Saskatchewan, the Yukon or Newfoundland.
We've got to start looking at the narrative that's being put to us and talk about some of the positives. The best thing we can do for the First Nations communities, or any community in this country, is to provide an opportunity for jobs. That's starting from number one.
I want to go back to the question of consultation. It's very difficult for those within the civil service to make some decisions because they're never sure exactly whether consultation has taken place to the extent that it should, whether it's been presented in the manner that it should, and whether it has been accepted by all parties as it should.
What would you think of the idea that maybe it's time for Parliament to define what "consultation'' means, the terms and conditions of consultation, so that there is a clear definition, from a national perspective across this country, so that we can proceed accordingly in respect to moving ahead as all Canadians?
Mr. Steinke: I guess I'll respond generally how we approach consultation, and then at the end come to the core of your question about a more defined process around the consultation.
For us in the federal government, we need to make sure the consultation is a meaningful process. Is it responsive? Can communities participate in the process? Do they understand the process? Do they understand what's being discussed?
One of the concerns we hear from communities when we're out consulting with them is that they don't understand because we come with very technical documents, if it's a regulatory decision, and they don't understand all the language. We have to make sure we provide them with a meaningful process in which they can participate actively.
Next, is our process responsive to the concerns or issues they raise? Sometimes that's where we may fail as we move forward, because sometimes we hear their concerns. We go back and say, okay, we can continue to move on. We don't think it's significant. Sometimes we need to be more responsive in going back to the communities and saying that we heard your concern, and here is the reason we did or did not address your concern in our project or activity. Is it natural resources? Is it a larger government decision that we took? We need to be responsive to the community on how we, as a government, are moving forward.
At the end of it, we are trying to seek consensus. If you are consulting with communities, you are trying to understand their concerns, and you're trying your best to address them. You don't have to always address their concerns, but you have to do your best. That's the objective of going out and doing consultation.
We get a lot of direction from the Supreme Court and other courts around this legal duty to consult. It's really about balancing the larger societal interests and Aboriginal interests. Ministers are making decisions on a regular basis about whether they can go ahead with this activity or project. It's taking that and using that balance.
It's not one side wins, the other one doesn't; it's balancing. That's a key fabric of where we are as a country on how we look at treaties in the modern treaty context. We negotiate that together, and we agree this is what they will do, this is what we will do as a federal government or a territorial government. It's that balance that we're striving for.
As for getting into specifics and defining it, my experience in working with my colleagues across the federal government is that often you can go in one community and they will say, "This is what we want.'' One will say, "For that type of project you can send us a letter and we will be fine with that. Based on that letter, that will be sufficient for us because we just want to be informed of what is going on.'' From our assessment, as a federal government, as we're looking at consultation, we may see a similar impact in both communities. They'll say, "No, we want deep consultation with you because, from our perspective, it's going to have a greater impact,'' and we have to follow through on that process in a respectful way.
It's always balancing the other side. It's not just one side that gets to decide, "Here are the rules; that's it.'' It's about understanding their concerns, even in the process of how you get to the concerns. Some communities have experts in fisheries and other areas, and they can respond quickly. Somebody from their community can look at it and say, "That's not going to impact fish; we're okay.'' Another community may not, so that's why they want a more meaningful conversation with federal officials.
There are federal guidelines for federal officials to follow when doing consultations. Federal officials are trained on those guidelines, and then each department has its own specific tools that help its officials, based on its activity, where the legal duty to consult is triggered, to follow those processes. It's fairly well laid out at the national level but also within departments. That, generally, is quite a supportive approach because it's also flexible. How you address a concern on a land disposal issue may be different from how you address a concern on a regulatory issue, a pipeline or a national corridor.
The Chair: To follow up on Senator Lang's question, when you consult, do you start with the chief and the band council? Is that enough consultation, or does it have to be citizen, face-to-face consultation? How does the process work, and who decides what has to be done? Does the chief say, "Now we're fine,'' and that's fine, or does the band council have to say, "We're fine?'' Or do you go have to go to the whole community?
Mr. Steinke: It's a good question, senator.
Usually, we go to the rights holders. Usually, in the First Nation context, it is the chief and council who speak on behalf of the rights holder, so that's generally our approach to reach out. Let's say you are undertaking consultation in a mining area and you talk to the chief and council, but you know there is a hunter from that community who is hunting in that area. That's where their trapline is. You may not have a legal obligation to include the hunter, but it's like if you were doing construction in the city of Ottawa. You may not need to talk to the local community, but you want to make sure that the community is aware of what potential project is coming. We reach out to the leadership, usually the chief and council. Based on that, we also include others if we deem it necessary, and sometimes that includes the local hunters and trappers, women, et cetera, to be part of the process. We will facilitate a process for that dialogue to occur. The courts have been clear that it is the rights holders that we need to reach out to; it's the individual families. It is the rights holders that we go to. So it varies based on the fabric of how the communities are set up and structured, and we adjust our consultation process accordingly.
Senator Lang: Can you table the guidelines that you just talked about?
Mr. Steinke: Yes, they are on our website.
Senator Lang: That would be important. Just following that line of thought with respect to what we are dealing with here, the reality of it is that the system is pretty broken for the purposes of the authorization of national-interest projects, such as pipelines and others. Look at our track record. What have we approved? Although we have regulatory processes in place, we've had years and years of hearings. We've had decisions being taken with recommendations being put forward and no decisions being made. This is affecting our country, and the concern I have is with respect to all those involved and coming from a small region of the country in the Yukon and, in this case, talking about the First Nation community. We have a First Nation community that is fully involved. Probably 20 per cent to 25 per cent of our workforce in the mining industry comes from the First Nation community. Resource development not going ahead means a lot to them, and not just to them but also to us as Canada.
You never really answered my question with respect to the general template that's expected on the question of consultation because you just told me that it's different for every community. If it's different for every community, knowing the way the system works and knowing that we have organizations and individuals out there who do not necessarily want any project to go ahead — it is not a question of trying to revise a project but to oppose a project — we have gridlock, where, at the end of the day, those that oppose a project and delay a project are winning. The Mackenzie gas pipeline has proved that. If you delay long enough, the project won't go ahead. A window opens; and a window closes.
You never answered my question on trying to come to some accommodation within the country to understand exactly what is expected of the national government, what is expected of all of the stakeholders, so that we can clearly understand how you go about at least making a decision in the regulatory process that then can be seen to be acceptable and move ahead. A "no'' decision is better than no decision, quite frankly. I'd like to address the question of trying to find a general framework because, the way it is sounding right now, the hunter who hunts in a small community can say that the project shouldn't go ahead.
Mr. Steinke: Senator, thanks for the question. I will just further elaborate on the response.
The courts have been very supportive of the government's designing the consultation process. They have allowed the governments — federal governments, provincial governments, territorial governments — to design a process for consultation. It's in our interest, as governments, to design a process to get to your kind of question.
So we design the process. Is it through the environmental assessment process? We go out; we reach. Each department will have a different structure on how it does that, but there is some commonality and consistency. We do coordinate our efforts on consultation among departments. We integrate it into the environmental assessment process. We make sure that we follow the steps. It's a fairly rigid and regular process.
My point is that these processes have to be adaptable to some of the community's needs. I'm not saying that a community can object and say, "No, I disagree with this project, so it doesn't go ahead.'' If we followed a fair and reasonable process and did our best in balancing Aboriginal interest and societal interest, we can make a decision on go or no go. The Crown can make that decision, and the government does make those decisions on a regular basis. There has to be a reasonable process, and it has to be a fair process to engage the communities.
My point around the communities' participation and uniqueness: We all understand that the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia may have a different approach on how they come to a similar project than the Maliseet or the Huron, et cetera. You have to understand that. That's all my point is. At the end of day, it is the Crown's process, and it gets to devise the process and go out.
The communities often want to have a say in how the process works, and sometimes it's important for us to pay attention to that because sometimes our processes may not meet their needs or concerns. Maybe in the North, for example, they are actually out hunting. We say, "We have 20 days to consult with you.'' They say, "We are actually hunting in those 20 days.'' You have to be a bit flexible, and that's where my point about flexibility is.
Ms. Murphy: I will add one point. I think that, for sure, right now, we are experiencing some frustration when you look at some of the delaying of decisions in and around pipelines in Western Canada. There are definitely a number of things at play right now where governments are trying to recalibrate the way in which they incorporate and consult indigenous communities in order to have development occur.
But a lot of other developments are occurring right now. There are mines moving through the regulatory process and moving on stream, as are other projects. We've got, in Saskatchewan, the Muskowekwan potash project actually happening on-reserve, and we've co-developed regulations with Saskatchewan on the First Nations so that they can have that mine and prosper from that mine on reserve lands.
There are opportunities. I think what we've got right now playing out in B.C. are a number of projects going through one jurisdiction, with an environmental assessment process that's under review. People know that it may not be the right process right now. There are pieces missing, so that's under consultation widely with indigenous communities, industry and others to see where you would change legislation, especially in and around earlier engagement and consultation. That will play out. Hopefully, we will end up with more clarity in and around those kinds of projects.
But there are other projects where communities are on board, working with industry. Industry and governments have listened and made adjustments, and communities are seeing benefits. I don't have a whole list, but there is a record there, and where we've done it right, we're being successful.
The Chair: The uranium mining industry is another industry, and uranium companies have a fantastic record in Saskatchewan of working with and employing indigenous people. Things change, and one man's medicine is another man's poison. With environmental groups, it's always like that, and you don't really know what will happen. Processes change over time and new discoveries are made about where there are problems. I think we have to live with it.
We actually approve a lot of pipelines, but you never hear about those that are approved. You only hear about the ones that aren't approved. There are those, usually the most important ones because there is a lot of money at stake.
I want to thank Mr. Steinke and Ms. Murphy for coming here today. Thank you for your presentations and for answering our questions. I thank Senator Greene for filling in for me.
Just before I introduce our next witness, we have the copyright report, which I want to forward to Communications, if that's okay with you. If anybody here has an issue with it — Library people have it, and I will forward it so that they can start working on it. They are under an embargo that they will be shot if it's released or if there are copies. If there is no issue, it will go to them. Thank you very much.
We are continuing our study on the development of a national corridor in Canada as a means of enhancing and facilitating commerce and internal trade. It gives me great pleasure today to welcome Honourary Lieutenant-General Richard Rohmer of the Canadian Armed Forces and the chair and originator of the Mid-Canada Development Corridor Conference, 1968 to 1972.
General, your decorated military and legal career and accomplishments are many, and I fear that if we were to list them here, we would run out of meeting time. We have about 45 minutes to an hour. It's safe to say that you are probably Canada's most decorated citizen. In August 1990, you were appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada. You hold a Silver Jubilee Medal, the Canadian Centennial Medal, the Commemorative Medal for the 125th Anniversary of Confederation, the Golden Jubilee Medal and the Defence Medal.
We're honoured to have you with us today. Please proceed with your opening remarks, after which we will go to questions and answers.
Honorary Lieutenant-General Richard Rohmer, Canadian Armed Forces, as an individual: Thank you for that lucid introduction. One decoration that is my best that was not mentioned is the Distinguished Flying Cross from World War II. I'm that old. "That old'' is a very serious "that old.'' I'll be 93 very shortly. I took part in D-Day when I was 20 in a P-51 Mustang, and I'm still fighting. That's the important part.
I must say also I'm very honoured to be here in the presence of this distinguished group of senators. I'm well beyond the age of qualification, which is 75. Senator Campbell and I have shared a particular board that I will not mention, but I cherish the opportunity to appear before him.
Let me just go back with the study that we did called the Mid-Canada Development Corridor Study, which began in 1969. It was my concept, and I pulled the whole thing together. We had about 150 people involved in the conference. I've supplied your body with a copy of the final report, which was given to the Governor General, who was the patron, and the Prime Minister in 1972.
Much of what I want to refer to is in the report itself, which is this modest document, in both official languages.
In 1969, 1970 and 1972, my law practice largely had to do with land use planning. For example, I appeared for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific before the Ontario Municipal Board in 1972 in a six-week hearing around which the application was to change the use of the land around Union Station in Toronto from Yonge Street over to Bathurst from railway land — the official plan — to a mix of uses, including high-rise development and entertainment. I got permission for the tower that's there. We had a six-week hearing, and at the end of period, the chairman of the OMB signed off and approved the land use change.
What you see there now, 40-odd years later, after 1972, is billions of dollars' worth of development — everything. There is the Air Canada Centre; the tower itself, which is iconic now; and the Rogers Centre. All of it — and it's still growing. Billions of dollars.
That's the kind of environment I was dwelling in at that point in terms of my profession of the law. I have other professions.
But it was the basic foundation for the concept of a land use plan for the whole of Canada, fundamentally. I remember being at my desk at home in 1972 and looking at a map of Canada that had a big greenbelt all the way across. I looked at that belt. That's a livable sector of Canada. It's treed, the whole thing. It has potential which is beyond imagination, quite apart from the opportunity for mineral and other development. It's a place where people can live.
On this planet there are very few places where people can come and live. It's cold and all of that kind of thing, but it's Canada at its heart. After that little look at the map, I started to put together a plan for the future orderly development of Canada. What I did was to retain Acres Research and Planning, a great engineering firm, to do a study for me. It was this mid-Canada development corridor, and they did a fantastic job. That study analyzed the entire mid- Canada region. I used that study to form a conference called the Mid-Canada Development Corridor Conference. The first person who was really supportive of me in this effort at the time was a fellow called Buck Crump. He was the crusty old head of Canadian Pacific Railway, and he and I hit it off very well. I'm just a young kid. This is 45 years ago.
The Chair: You were just mid-age then, sir.
Mr. Rohmer: Whatever I was, Buck supported me. He brought people from Montreal and bankers and everybody else. We finally got all the provinces. I wanted all the provinces involved in the conference, and the conference was simple. It was for the purpose of looking at the opportunities for planning. We didn't come up with a plan. We came up with the need for planning, a future orderly development of the mid-Canada region. That's what we recommended.
It's all in this great report at the back end of it. It is all very simple. We looked at the environment. We looked at the Native people. We looked at the questions you were asking today. We recognized there had to be some overall body.
This is my most recent book. I do write books from time to time. This one is called Sir John A.'s Crusade and Seward's Magnificent Folly. It's a fictional story of Sir John A. Macdonald leaving Canada 150 years ago this month to go to England to martial the people who were already there, the Fathers of Confederation, in their fight for what turned out to be the British North America Act. He left, by the way. One hundred and fifty years ago he was the Minister of Militia and Defence. Cartier and all the rest of them were waiting in London for him, and he couldn't go. There was a reason. He was the Minister of Militia and Defence, not the other kind that you're so used to. He couldn't go because of the Fenians. The Fenians worked in Niagara and Detroit.
I grew up in Fort Erie, partly, by the way, big town. The Fenians were very active, and they were coming across the rivers and attacking and just raising hell. But he knew when the snow flew that the Fenians would go into the nearest pub in Niagara or Detroit and never be seen again. That's exactly what happened.
In November, right now, 150 years ago, he went by train to New York and across to London. He was well received, and this is the story, a fictional treatment. It's the only fictional treatment of what Macdonald and the whole lot did. There is a lot of fact in it as well.
I put together a conference and knocked on all kinds of doors and charged $5,000 a head for participation. We had the top environmentalists of the day, the top land use planners, the people involved with the indigenous people. I want to stress that we understood the Indian base. Metis are quite separate from what we used to call Eskimos. They are a different cut and a different temperament, in my opinion. They must be dealt with differently. They are both very competent and extremely intelligent people. How to deal with them is very important.
In any event, the mid-Canada conference lasted for two years. We flew through the entire mid-Canada region all the way up to Nunavik and Tuk. I got a radio station going for Tuktoyaktuk, which has now disappeared. Our involvement was total. We did meet in Montreal to work out this great report. This report will cover every one of the items that you are interested in when looking to the future.
Fundamentally what we said is that it is in the national interests that there be long-range policies and plans developed for the future orderly development of mid-Canada. Boom. That's what we said. We have all of the background recommendations having to do with every element that you are going to deal with to create a plan.
One of the basic elements is that there has to be a role for the Government of Canada, which is the overall umbrella of which you are such a significant part. There has to be the plan created by the Government of Canada in conjunction with all of the provinces who are at the table as well, in terms of creating a plan for the future orderly development of mid-Canada.
My former law partner was a fellow called Roland Michener, and he happened to be the Governor General at the time. I was his junior in a firm called Lang Michener and Cranston back in the 1950s. We stuck together his life and mine, but he was a patron. There was a conference. When it came time to present this report in all its elegant form in both official languages, the Governor General invited Prime Minister Trudeau to lunch and me and my little team of supporters. We had lunch. I presented the report to the Governor General. I have a nice photograph of that with the Prime Minister.
What I wanted the Prime Minister to do was to look at it and then agree in principle that there should be a long- range policy and plan committee organization formed by the federal government to be an umbrella and to confer with all the bodies involved and eventually to create a long-range land use and resource plan for Canada, in the mid-Canada region, the boreal forest.
Well, the little story goes this way: I was an arch Conservative at the time, and the Prime Minister was totally aware of that. When he arrived, we shook hands, had the photographs taken and all this kind of stuff. It was my job to brief him using slides and so forth, which is what I did. Then he started to ask questions, and I could immediately tell he hadn't even looked at our material. At lunch, the Governor General was twitching at the end of the table, as host. The Prime Minister was opposite me, and I was mad at the Prime Minister and he was mad at me, so we had a wonderful lunch.
I did get him to agree to allow me to take our overall proposal to an ad hoc committee of deputy ministers. I love deputy ministers, provided that they don't have anything to do with me. I knew that I was done when he agreed to that. In any event, that was the day when he was so upset. We got into the House of Commons, and my great friend, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, asked him a question, and that was the day that the Prime Minister first used the words "fuddle duddle'' in the house. So I am a part-author of the words "fuddle duddle.''
The reality was that because I couldn't convince him or his people that there was some merit in looking at the Mid- Canada development corridor, nothing ever happened with it. It sort of muttered along from time to time, and then people would pick it up before you looked at pieces and parts of it.
What I'm recommending to you today is not my work. This is the work of a committee made up of the people who are listed here, 150 of them, who are some of the best brains of Canada of the day in the early 1970s, like environmentalists and everything; every kind of person was involved, but no politicians, fundamentally. I think the document contains material that is as valid now as it was 45 years ago. I can't believe it's been 45 years, but in any event, that's the reality of it.
I recommend it to your team. Take a look at the recommendations that are elucidated in the report. You have it in an email form so that you can copy it easily and take a look at it.
We deal with the indigenous people and recommendations on how to deal with them. We had some very significant indigenous people in our group, as well.
That is the nature of the Mid-Canada development corridor concept and report.
Since that time, there has been no overall plan. I believe that it's the fundamental objective and duty of the federal government, from its arch power situation, to create a body that will examine all of these questions with a view to creating a plan. We did not do a plan; we said there should be a plan, and I recommend it to you highly.
There's one other corridor I'd like to speak to in a different way, if you would permit me so to do.
The Chair: How long will it take?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: I usually take about two minutes.
The Chair: That's perfect.
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: I do have a military title. I'm not using it here, although it's being used here; I am the Honourary Lieutenant-General to the Canadian Armed Forces. I'm very proud of the title, but I'm not appearing in any military context with you.
I'm concerned about another corridor that I hope you will pay attention to. It's a corridor called the Northwest Passage. I have prepared a memorandum for the Minister of Defence and submitted it to him, and when I'm dealing with him, in my material, which you have, there are two things.
First of all, we are aware that the Northwest Passage is in a melt form with the changing temperatures of the planet, we are aware that the Russian government is arming its top end, in the Arctic, and we're also aware that the Chinese are taking a very strong interest in the Northwest Passage. They believe, as the Russians do, that the waters of the Northwest Passage are international. So do the Americans.
The reality is the Northwest Passage route, which is well-defined, is Canadian. What I'm recommending is that we recognize the Northwest Passage as a corridor of transportation and a military corridor. We finally have to pay some attention, other than words, to protect our assets in the Arctic islands and the Northwest Passage in real terms, instead of talk terms.
I'm recommending to the minister that there be a real concentration now on populating the Northwest Passage with two things: One is troops, one is an aircraft, and the other is the Navy and a gate in the middle of the Northwest Passage whereby all of the ships that want to go through must go through the gate. If you don't put the gate in, they will try to get through. We have to pay some attention to this.
I'm an old fighter pilot, and I'm supporting the utilization of the F-35B in my paper. The F-35B is a vertical-takeoff- and-landing aircraft. The marines are using the vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft, but with a vertical-takeoff-and- landing capability you don't need a big runway in the High Arctic for stationing along the Northwest Passage. All you need is a pad in certain places where the aircraft can be launched.
I'm also doing something else. I am the honorary chief of the Toronto Paramedic Services in Ontario, and I'm also recommending that a pod be created that would latch on to the F-35 vertical, which I call a paramedic pod. The paramedic pod can fit under the wing and can contain room for a paramedic and also for a patient. In other words, this aircraft would be a facility that doesn't exist there now, whereby if there's some sort of accident or danger we would have a machine that could lift people safely out.
These are crazy ideas, and I'm hoping that some attention will be paid, when we look at the F-35B, to a vertical- takeoff-and-landing machine, which is really quite something.
That's another corridor. That took me two and a half minutes.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Could we keep our questions to our subject? I know that the water corridor is a really interesting one, but it belongs to another committee, and it's too bad Senator Lang isn't here, as he is chair of the committee that would be interested in this topic. Thank you very much. It will be tabled here, and we'll forward it to them. We do have quite a bit of time.
Senator Wallin: Thanks very much for being here. It's a pleasure and an honour to have you with us. As you've laid it out, obviously it would have been a lot easier to do this project at the time —
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: Yes.
Senator Wallin: — than it would be now in terms of cost and agreement and all the rest, and that you need the federal government as a champion.
Beyond that, do you believe that this needs the Prime Minister to sign off to become that leader of champions? Are there other people that you believe could step up and be part of that? Are you still a believer that all premiers and territorial leaders have to sign on? Where do you think we are today on this to take it to where you were?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: What I would like to see now, I think the Prime Minister is absolutely essential to any determination of purpose from the national point of view.
Our Prime Minister is a very articulate young man, exceptional in his articulate abilities. But for the purpose of creating long-range policies and plans that involve everybody, the Prime Minister would have to sign on and say, "I support the concept of overall planning for the mid-Canada region and the creation of a body of planning that would embrace all the provinces and territories in terms of making decisions and making the plans.'' That would, of course, include full representation of the indigenous people, both from the Indian Metis and what I call the Eskimos because I'm so old.
The reality is I think it has to be that kind of approach. If the Prime Minister doesn't sign on, and his government, the same thing would happen again as happened in 1972. Forget it.
You're into an area now which really is important for our country, and I commend you for taking on this task of trying to put the thing together in a form that can be sold to the people.
Senator Wallin: You talked about your earlier relationship with the head of the CPR, I think it was at that time.
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: Yes, Buck Crump.
Senator Wallin: Perhaps that's a way to approach this — if there were some private sector group, people who had vested interests and money to bring to the table, if that group were constructed first to present to the Prime Minister. I don't know how that process worked or if you'd need to sign off first. What's your best advice?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: It's too late. Either the Prime Minister and the government can take the initiative, or not. If they can, then you will find that people who are successors of Buck Crump and everybody else are ready to get involved. But it requires the overview of the Prime Minister and his entire cabinet and office to say, "We want a plan for the future orderly development of Canada.'' It's as simple as that — the North, mid-Canada, and throw in the High Arctic as well. But the reality is I think it's very simple that it has to be on that level and with that kind of commitment.
The Chair: The study from the University of Calgary did map out, through the Mackenzie River pipeline, that the corridor would not only include east to west but that there would be a northern —
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: And our corridor went right up to the Mackenzie, to Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk.
The Chair: Yes. It is amazing.
Senator Campbell: Thank you, general, for coming today. It's always an honour and a pleasure to be in your company.
Do you think that the relationships between the provinces and the federal government, and the change of the relationship with our indigenous people, make it easier or harder to put this corridor together, now versus 40 years ago?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: I think it's much easier now. We have agreements in place with the Native people that we didn't have in 1972. There has been great progress by the Native people in terms of establishing the relationship with the provincial government and with the federal government. A lot has been done now that would facilitate exactly what we were proposing then. So the answer is that it should be a lot easier now.
Senator Campbell: Including the provinces. One of the things we studied here was interprovincial trade. If we can't get that, how are we going to get them to agree to a corridor that runs across and up?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: I think it would all be brought together, and if you did get an opportunity for cooperation and understanding between the provinces and the federal government as things progress in this area, your problem would largely be resolved. A lot of talking would have to take place.
Senator Enverga: I am extremely honoured to have you here. Thank you for being here.
I know there is difficulty in having such a national corridor. Would you suggest that like-minded provinces, like the Western provinces, band together and maybe create their own regional corridors, and then the others will hopefully follow? Is that part of your study?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: They could, within the territory that they control. For example, from the great port in the West Coast that is being looked at in terms of development, the railway down into Alberta or Saskatchewan could reasonably be put together using the whole thing of putting a string on a globe. The distance is perfect. I don't see any real problem with that kind of difficulty at all.
Senator Enverga: What do you think is stopping the government from doing the national corridor? Are there any particular difficulties that they say they are uncomfortable with?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: It's simply a matter of a concept and a group of ideas being put together that can actually be done and created. All we're talking about now is a body, a group that can put together plans and policies for the future, as I put it, orderly development of Canada. It's a concept, and it's nothing more than that at this stage. You're right in the middle of it.
Senator Smith: Sir, we're studying this concept that you initiated. It's was followed up, I guess, two other times in the mid-1990s and around 2002, with no results. We will create a report. From your perspective, if you were in our shoes — and I think we have a very sincere interest in trying to promote this concept — what could we do as a committee to help develop that movement to get the Prime Minister interested? If you were in our shoes, what would you do?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: What I would do is very simple. I would take this report, which is 45 years old, which is, in my opinion, valid today, look at the recommendations it is making, and simply put your own stamp on the recommendations, and, if you felt like it, say, "We recommend to the Government of Canada that the basic findings of this conference, the recommendations, which are delineated very well, be followed, that a body be established to create the long-range policies and plans, and that body involve the federal government and the provinces.'' It's as simple as that.
Senator Smith: What would we say about the Prime Minister's involvement? Would we put that in?
Lt.-Gen. Rohmer: I would put it in. He's a very bright young man, and he knows which way the wind is blowing. There's a lot of wind these days; that's for sure.
Let me give you an example. I stick my nose into various things that interest me. A few months ago I wrote to the Prime Minister and I said, "Prime Minister, I'm an old observer and land use planner for pipelines. I am interested in pipelines because we have to have them. And I said that from Fort McMurray, you cannot cross British Columbia. It's almost impossible. I said there's another route here that you've never looked at. It's a route that you start from Fort McMurray and you go northwest up the line from — it was approved from Inuvik and Tuk, but you use the same route until you get to the corner of British Columbia and Yukon.
When you get to the corner of Yukon, then you turn and you go west on the highway routes and you're in Yukon. So you go from Alberta to Yukon, not British Columbia. Then you keep going west until you hit the American border, and when you hit the American border, you go to a place called Valdez. Valdez has surplus facilities now, because of the diminution of the flow from Prudhoe Bay. The facilities are already there.
What you're doing is avoiding British Columbia, and Yukon would probably say, yes, we'd like to have the pipeline there and you'd negotiate with the Native people.
So I wrote to the Prime Minister and sent him my little map and so forth. He sent it over to his Minister of Natural Resources. I got a nice letter back from the Minister of Natural Resources saying that they don't act on proposals for pipelines. The proposals have to come from private enterprise, like Enbridge or somebody. They don't initiate them themselves.
I wrote back and said, "It's time, minister, that you figured out that if you're going to build a pipeline, you have the power to build it. You built an oil company decades ago, back when I was doing my thing, and you did all of the tiers expiration, service stations, the whole business. You could do that. You should now, in the interests of Canada, form a corporation and build the pipeline yourself so that you will be able to take that or any other.''
So did I a very rude return to him. I haven't had a response. The reality is that's what the Government of Canada should be doing. It's very simple. Form a corporation, fund it, say, "That's where we're going to build this pipeline, and we'll have hearings and so forth. Get out of the way. We're going to do it.'' Don't wait for Enbridge or anybody else to come along. Do it. And we'll see what happens.
I'm sure it's just like this 45 years ago: "Oh, yes, what's your name? I forget. Who are you?''
The reality is there are great opportunities for development and planning for Canada, and I that this government is going to have an opportunity to do exactly along the lines that we are talking about.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, I want to thank you very much for coming today. We're honoured to have you here, sir, and thoroughly enjoyed and learned lots from your presentation.
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)