Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

With respect to our economic development study, what advice could you provide to this committee that would be useful for the department?

[Michael Wernick]

I'm not sure I would dare to give advice. You've been out there and you've talked to people. I think we have the agency now, as I've said, for a real gathering point for input and advice. I think what's really key is to figure out what are the obstacles to private investment and entrepreneurship for the growth of a vibrant private sector in northern and aboriginal communities.

Our sense is that there are two key obstacles. One is the regulatory regime, which is quite a tangle, and that's going to require legislative and regulatory change to find an easier way of dealing with environmental assessments and the social impacts of development. That would be one. The other is the shortage of trained people, so there's everything we can do to invest in education, skills, and development in the north to make sure that northern development isn't a fly-in, fly-out model, but one that actually engages and employs northerners.

If you focus on those two areas, then we would have northern development that benefits all Canadians, but northerners would play a big role in it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I want to use the last minute and 20 seconds here, if I may.

Mr. Wernick, in the course of our discussions on northern economic development, members have referenced this issue respecting funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. While we don't have any specifics on that, but I note that the government is in fact in the throes of expanding research in the Arctic, particularly as it relates to climate change. I wonder if you could comment on whether that's in transition or where are we in our research investments in the north, particularly as it relates to climate change.

[Michael Wernick]

I'm not familiar with that institution. I could get that from the committee clerk, and we could give you an update on where they stand. I'd be happy to do that.

Generally, as I noted in my long answer about Arctic science, northern science, and the role of the research station and so on, climate change adaptation is probably the dominant scientific theme in all the fieldwork that's going on in the Arctic. We have a world-class research station up there. Climate change adaptation is going to be what's happening up there to the land, the sea, and the people. It really is the dominant theme in northern science.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much.

I would like to take this time, by the way, to also commend all the officials who are with you here today. I had occasion to wonder, in fact, who's left at the department. Obviously you must have some tremendous people still there, because I think just about every directorate is here. We have seen many of you from time to time.

I also want to ask, of course, as we often do when there are so many questions that will require answers at some point in the future, that you review the blues and have a look at those questions. I know that the department has been good and timely in getting back with its information after the fact. We'd ask that you do that again.

At this point we have some committee business to do. On behalf of all the members of the committee, we appreciate you coming here today.

Committee members, we're going to proceed with the two items of committee business. The first item, as has been circulated, concerns the second report of the subcommittee, which met on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m.

The second item pertains to the addition of witnesses to the Ottawa hearings list. Of course, they're all Ottawa hearings now that we've finished with our territorial meetings. Those include the five organizations that will be incorporated, I should say, into the existing schedule. These are organizations that had been invited to the territorial hearings but for various reasons were unable to get there.

I'll come to questions in a moment.

There are three organizations: the National Association of Friendship Centres, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in relation to the True North report, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These three witnesses would be in addition to the work plan we first authorized.

I saw a hand up from Mr. Lemay and also from Mr. Bagnell.

Go ahead, Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It is actually a point of order, Mr. Chair. I think we need to adopt the votes in the supplementary estimates that we have just discussed. It is a formality, but I move that we do it anyways so you can report it to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It's certainly the choice of the committee. It's deemed to be adopted or resolved if there are no changes, but if you wish to go through the formality of in fact adopting the motion to accept the supplementary estimates (B), that's perfectly fine. Do you want to do that right now?

On the same point of order, Mr. Bagnell?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I was going to move that we accept the supplementary estimates.

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

I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT Department Vote 1b--Operating expenses..........$97,276,212 Vote 10b--grants and contributions..........$186,872,884 Vote 25b--Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and non-Status Indians – Contributions..........$1 Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency Vote 37b--Operating expenditures..........$8,260,446 Vote 39b--Contributions..........$600,000 Registry of the Specific Claims Tribunal Vote 55b--Program expenditures..........$272,000

(Votes 1b, 10b, 25b, 37b, 39b, and 55b agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemay.

Now we'll go to Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'm just wondering why the subcommittee chose not to invite Air Canada to go to the subcommittee meeting. It was one of my suggestions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Do any of the subcommittee members wish to speak on that?

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We think that request should be directed to the Department of Transport instead. It is the one that grants rights involving licences. In addition, Air Canada falls under transport. So we feel it would be inappropriate for us to interfere in a file that we do not know enough about. That includes the reasons why Air Canada obtained or will obtain that right. Therefore, if a request is made, we recommend that the transport committee be the one to consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I would like to move that Air Canada be added to the list and I'll tell you why. We did allow other airlines that service the north, so it doesn't make any sense to exclude one airline. I'm only asking on economic development grounds that we see them. They service three of the northern communities and the other airlines referred specifically to them and some impediments to economic development that they were creating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Duncan, and then Mr. Russell.

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

I would just like to say that in my recollection we had one other airline there, and we did not invite that other airline to bring up the subject of competition with other airlines. They injected it into the process. That was outside our committee's terms of reference and mandate.

Part of the subcommittee discussion, and I guess I will share it--or at least my part of the discussion--was that if we were to invite Air Canada then we'd have to invite all the other northern airlines, and pretty soon we'd be opening up a whole new subject area that is not even our committee's mandate, which is competition in the airline industry in the north or wherever it happens to be. I thought it was most inappropriate. I'm a minority on the subcommittee, as you know, but that was certainly my part of the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

My recollection was similar. We talked about inviting other airlines and Air Canada in the context of looking at challenges and what may be opportunities in the broader context of transportation, seeing that the north is heavily dependent upon air transport as one of its avenues. We did not choose to invite Air Canada specifically outside of inviting other airlines. That was my recollection. Mr. Duncan is right: if we were going to invite one specific airline we would have to look at the other dynamics that the other airlines bring to the whole northern economic development study.

That's the only reason. Nobody on the subcommittee, as I understood it, wanted to get into the introduction of new routes and what kind of competition issues that would raise between various airlines. We didn't feel that was part of our mandate or our purview in terms of the study.

So there we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Well, seeing as “Brute” is going to vote against me, I'll withdraw my motion.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Anthony, Anthony....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

We're still on discussion and consideration of the subcommittee report.

Monsieur Lemay.