Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Peter Vician]

Quickly, number one--and Rosemary said it well--we need to approach the establishment of this agency in the north on a partnership model, not with the territories being treated as a stakeholder. By partnership I mean we're part of the development of the organization, how it runs, its principles, its guiding priorities and overall goals, and how it operates in the future. That would be the key point for us.

[Rosemary Keenainak]

I'll just add that we all think it's an extremely positive step, as I indicated in my opening comments. Some of the funding the territories have been getting for the last several years has been very short term. We're hoping that the regional development agency will ensure consistent and stable funding for the north so that we can diversify the economy.

Thank you.

[Harvey Brooks]

I think it is very positive. We see that it can be done in an extremely good fashion if it develops properly. I think we've heard the themes here. It needs to be a partnership. It needs to be flexible enough to address the different needs of the three territories at the same time. And it needs to be inclusive.

So we really hope we get to an operating model that has input from our first nations and from our territorial governments to establish the priorities as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bélanger, you have five minutes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, madam; good morning, gentlemen.

first, I apologize for arriving late. I was called to appear as a witness in front of a Senate committee, and one does not deny the other chamber. I will also apologize ahead of time if this has been brought up, and if it has, then I'll go and read the transcript.

The question I bring up would probably necessitate a series of meetings by itself. It's related to climate change. There's a fairly commonly accepted view that climate change will have a greater impact in certain areas of the world, the north being that area in particular.

My question is related to economic development, forecasting investments, and so forth. Do you factor in the climate change impact on water levels, permafrost, utility corridors, flora, fauna, buildings, forests, you name it? Do you factor in the necessity for remedial or even adaptive work? If it's factored in, how big a factor is it?

[Peter Vician]

Thank you for the question. It is a critical issue for the north. I think we share this with all our northern territories. We have identified climate change as one of the most critical factors to deal with in the coming decades. We do believe Canadians need to take a strong role in terms of understanding the science of climate change in the Arctic.

We welcome and encourage a continued investment in the science R and D side. We heard announcements from the federal government recently about doing that and about its presence in the north increasing. We think that's critical, because none of us really understands exactly what's happening. We see what's happening in terms of the day to day. We've all experienced that, and it's not nice in some areas.

Let me say that the environmental processes in the north are slowly moving to an understanding of how to accommodate climate change in the development and monitoring and, as you indicated quite clearly, an adaptive management process throughout the life of any project and how it affects things. But it's not just those development projects. It's transportation systems, it's housing, it's the people. It's the lifestyle of the people that has been affected. Our traditional peoples are telling us on a daily basis how things are changing in the wildlife elements, in the habitats, in the traditional areas, in our forest fire impacts on an annual basis, and so on. These are all things we don't understand.

If I had to say one thing that has to be done collectively by Canadians, it is to get that better understanding. Invest in science, invest in research, invest in the kind of understanding we need for the long term to deal with this correctly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Other comments?

[Rosemary Keenainak]

I won't repeat what Peter indicated. Some things have occurred. There are some birds that we don't normally see in Iqaluit, like blue jays. Those are odd things that are coming up. There are weird kinds of insects coming up. People do see them. My family, originally from Pangnirtung, is very traditional in terms of harvesting something like that. The seasons and the ice in Cumberland Sound are examples. Turbot fishing was occurring quite a bit, but the ice conditions in Cumberland Sound have not permitted that for a number of years, so there are immediate impacts on that.

Peter is right that we are starting to make modifications in terms of permafrost impacts on buildings. I know for our office, which was built a couple of years ago, they have taken that into consideration. It's something that we need to deal with. The Government of Nunavut does have a climate change strategy as well that we are trying to implement, but we also need to take a look at the opportunities that will occur.

Let's say, for example, that the Northwest Passage was to open up a little bit more. We need to take advantage of some of those opportunities. Sovereignty is going to be a big issue for the north. I think it was yesterday or this morning that Russia said in the media that Canada is not doing enough to protect the north. It's too weak. Northerners need to be involved in that process. It cannot just be people from southern Canada dictating how we're going to deal with climate change in the north. We need to be involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Brooks.

[Harvey Brooks]

I echo those comments. Climate change is likely to be a significant issue for us in the future. We are taking steps to address our own carbon footprint in Yukon, but also to understand that there will not be a solution to this problem without a significant southern strategy. We just recently established the Yukon Climate Change Research Centre of Excellence at Yukon College, as well as the Yukon Cold Climate Innovation Centre, to try to get an understanding of what is taking place, get the research questions answered, and also look for opportunities in the future that may present themselves as a result of changes as well as the adaptive costs that we might be facing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Now we'll go to Mr. Duncan for five minutes.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much. My question is for Mr. Vician.

You stated that you felt the NWT was not convinced that MPMO, the major project management office, was the way to go. I'm just wondering, number one, whether that is a government position. Number two, was that position taken in consultation with industry? Do they share that view as well?

[Peter Vician]

At this point the recommendation, the way we understand it, is that some form of satellite MPMO exists in the north. At this point, the answer I previously gave is what the government's position is. We believe the existing systems of review of our development projects is the right pattern to take. If there is a potential for improvement by a different form of coordination at the federal level, and if you want to call it a satellite MPMO, we will accept that. However, we think there are existing systems in place already that could satisfy that requirement.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I can tell you that this has been very welcome by industry in the areas where we have set them up, so I was actually kind of struck by your comments.

It's fairly clear from the discussion that the two questions, regulatory regimes and devolution, are closely tied together. You can't get to where you want to go on regulatory regime without devolution. At least I think that's what I'm hearing, quite clearly.

We are also hearing that it's important that decisions be made in the north as much as that the drivers of decisions be in the north. We have the example of the Yukon. So I guess my question for the NWT and Nunavut would be this: What can be driven locally in the north to get us closer to devolution? And what absolutely has to happen federally? Where is the biggest stumbling block? Is this not once again shared? I mean, there have to be a lot of responsible parties to get it where it needs to go, and so far, it's a little bit unclear to the committee how to get where we need to get.

[Peter Vician]

Let me take the second part. I agree with you fully that the responsibilities are divested, with all the governments--territorial, federal, and aboriginal governments--having to come to a conclusion on devolution for the territories. That has to happen on a willing basis by all parties. We're willing. We're ready to sit down seriously to complete a devolution agreement. We need the federal government to demonstrate that same willingness and to find ourselves in a final forum for an agreement in principle in the short term, going to a final agreement, hopefully, very soon thereafter.

I think it's important to understand that we don't necessarily see regulatory improvement following a devolution arrangement. I may have misspoken earlier. We believe that improvements are possible, and we reported on them to Minister Strahl recently. That can happen immediately on the whole regulatory environment, and that should proceed regardless of whether devolution is happening tomorrow or next year or the year after.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Ms. Keenainak.

[Rosemary Keenainak]

I don't know about others, but I can add to what Peter has commented on.

We know that devolution in Nunavut is probably going to be a little bit later than in NWT, but we would like to at least start the discussions on how that's going to work. We also need to make sure we discuss the experience the Yukon has had in terms of that process. We'll also be discussing with the NWT how they do their devolution.

So it's just a matter of getting to the table and actually starting to write things down, as Peter indicated, like an agreement in principle and an official signing. So it's just getting to the table and starting to negotiate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Now we move to Mr. Asselin, from the Bloc Québecois.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

My question goes to the Yukon representatives as well.

In your conclusion, you say: “We look forward to getting more detailed input on the structure and operations of the new agency.“ What are the details you look forward to getting? That is a significant line. You put it in your conclusion, so it must be very important to you.

You go on to say, and I quote: “I look forward to the establishment of the federal-territorial working group that will provide us with a structured forum in which to move forward.“ Can you tell us more about the ideal structure that would allow you to operate within the working group with your expectations harmonized?

[Harvey Brooks]

Thank you very much for the question.

We'd very much like to sit down with INAC officials and work together to get a good understanding of what the regional economic development agency would like to do, the funding it has available, the coordination it can provide, and how it will interact with each territory on an ongoing basis to establish the priorities that are there for each of us, and how the interaction of the first nations comes into that. We have been using a process with our SINED program funding whereby we have an annual meeting where we work with first nations and territories and the federal government to establish joint priorities. We think something along that line is important to discuss and work toward.

Again, we don't see ourselves as stakeholders in the same sense as other stakeholders have been consulted. We would very much like to work in partnership on this. I think if we do, we can achieve the maximum benefits of this initiative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Do you want to answer as well?

[Rosemary Keenainak]

I think Harvey has summed it up. There have not been a lot of discussions with us in terms of the nuts and bolts of an RDA yet. There have been little bits of meetings with us individually. One of the things we've been asking for as three jurisdictions is that we meet with INAC officials in one room rather than one-off. That's one of the things I hope we're going to be doing this afternoon on this particular project.

For Nunavut, we do have a process as well, similar to Yukon's, where we work with the Nunavut Economic Forum, which is an organization of our Inuit organizations, the business sector, the different sectors, and government. The federal government is involved in that forum. We do have a process in place whereby we determine the priorities, let's say, for the investment plan for the SINED program.

[Peter Vician]

I share those views and have nothing more to add. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, forming a working group can be an empty gesture. If the government intends to form a working group, are Yukon and the Northwest Territories ready? Have they given it any thought? What are their expectations and priorities? What recommendations are they ready to make in the working group so that it is productive and so that it produces results on the ground relatively quickly? We know that anything the working group comes up with will have financial implications. Is the government ready to respond to those implications in its current budget or in subsequent budgets?

With regard to infrastructure, you always have to have assessments in the Northwest Territories and perhaps in Yukon. Do you have the machinery, the workforce and the materials you need to build small craft harbours, and to provide your communities with infrastructure for health and education? The North has to be developed, but it has to be done by considering the needs of the people.