Residential Schools (May 2006) Residential Schools (January 2007) Northern Climate ExChange Program (February 2007) Aboriginal Economic Development (March 2007) Global Warming—Initiatives to Assist the Territories (May 2007) Nahanni Park Consultation (November 2007) Aboriginal Education (May 2008) Location of Proposed Northern Development Agency (March 2009) Aboriginal Healing Foundation (2010) Northern Development Agency (2010) Funding for Northern Projects (2010) ecoENERGY Retrofit Program (2010) Hydroelectric Power Generation in the North (2010) Offshore Oil Drilling (2010) Arctic Offshore Drilling Review Northern Food Subsidies (2011) Highways Regulatory Reform Pipeline Project Crime Bill Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Process (2012)
INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS RESOLUTION
May 2, 2006
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, this is a good
opportunity to practice asking questions. My question relates to
the residential school issue.
In his final report on the Indian residential school settlement,
Justice Iacobucci recommended to the government that advance
payments be made to elderly claimants. Last week, in announcing
that a final agreement had been reached, Minister Prentice
said: ‘‘The government will immediately consider the settlement
agreement, and the interim payments and the timing of those
payments.
Can the government leader confer with her colleague
Mr. Prentice and determine when the government intends to
make advance payments to the 8,000 or so eligible former
residential school students?
There are reports that four of these elderly persons die each day.
Obviously time is of the essence. It is important that the
government act quickly so there can be some measure of
satisfaction, comfort and peace for the elderly people who
during their earlier lives endured and suffered so much in
residential schools.
I have a supplementary question. Although the proposed
settlement is welcome and is generally very good for Aboriginal
people, I know that there will be real problems implementing the
payments when they come about.
I have already received several letters from former students who
attended schools in the North during late 1940s and 1950s but
have been told that there is no record of their attendance. I am
sure these poor records will affect hundreds if not thousands of
students who will eventually apply for these payments.
What kind of process does the government plan to put in place
to ensure that people’s legitimate claims are recognized? Will
there be a simple process they can follow so that they will not be
frustrated, insulted or revictimized simply because schools and
government of the time failed to keep proper records?
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): One
serious question that we received yesterday was on the
residential schools, from Senator Sibbeston. His was a serious,
heartfelt question.
Residential schools is a very serious issue. It is one that the
previous government was also very concerned about and worked
hard to find a resolution. For that, I give them great credit and
thank them.
The federal representative, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci,
has reached substantive agreement on a final Indian residential
schools agreement but is still confirming final details with some of
the parties. As Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, has stated, legal representatives for the
Catholic Church groups involved have given their assurance that
they will confirm their written support for the agreement. These
discussions are in the final stage. Once we have final
confirmation, the government will immediately consider the
settlement agreements and advance payments to the elderly, and
will deal quickly with the timing of those payments.
In response to Senator Sibbeston’s supplementary question,
I would like to add that in issuing any payments as part of the
agreement, the government will ensure that an appropriate
process is in place to make sure that the funds go to valid claims.
January 31, 2007
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning the residential school issue about which I made a statement yesterday. Much progress has been made on this issue, and I commend the government and Minister Prentice in particular, who seems to be very committed to having the residential school issue resolved.
Recently, the Attorney General of Canada launched an appeal in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal regarding not the substance of the agreement, but more of an administrative matter dealing with fees. Many Aboriginal people in the country are concerned that this appeal may delay the final approval and, hence, payment to former residential school students.
I know that the Assembly of First Nations has asked Canada and the Saskatchewan court to try to deal with this agreement without the delay that the appeal may cause. Can the Leader of the Government confer with her cabinet colleagues responsible for this issue with a view to having the agreement receive final accord approval without delay so that the 80,000 former students can be compensated?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): I thank the honourable senator for the question. It is an issue he has advanced through his work here in the Senate and elsewhere and he deserves a great deal of credit for his efforts.
Our government remains committed to resolving the tragic legacy of the situation in the Indian residential schools. We do not anticipate that the appeal will result in a delay in implementing the settlement agreement. However, as the honourable senator knows, the issue of legal fees of the Merchant Law Group is currently before the court in Saskatchewan and therefore it would be inappropriate, indeed impossible, for me to make any further comment on that case.
Senator Sibbeston: I have a supplementary question dealing with the issue of an apology from the Government of Canada.
The issue of compensation is well underway. Is the federal government considering an apology? We saw recently in the Arar case that the government paid compensation and delivered a letter of apology from the Prime Minister. Would the federal government consider providing an apology to all students for the grievous time they spent in residential schools earlier in their lives?
Senator LeBreton: When we came into government the whole issue of the residential schools was in play. My understanding is that when the decision was made and the settlement was negotiated, they were done with all parties agreeing on the payment of certain funds for the situation that they found themselves in. I do not believe that the question of an apology was part of that final agreement.
Northern Climate ExChange Program—Outcome of Meetings to Restore Funding
February 13, 2007
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerns funding cuts to organizations that deal with climate change in the North. The issue of climate change is so relevant to the North because the North is so vulnerable. Last week, it was reported in the Ottawa Citizen and on CBC North that the federal government is cutting $320,000 to Northern Climate ExChange, in Whitehorse, Yukon. The NCE has been operating since 2000 to provide credible independent information, to develop shared understanding and to promote action on climate change in Northern Canada. The organization has played an important role in facilitating Arctic science and engaging northerners in climate change.
The Government of Yukon supports the Northern Climate ExChange. Premier Fentie was in Ottawa last week to meet with Minister Baird and his colleagues to discuss the importance of restoring the funding to the NCE. Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell the Senate whether Premier Fentie was successful in his efforts to have the federal funding restored to this important organization for climate change initiatives in the North?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): Honourable senators, the Northern Climate ExChange program was funded out of the former One-Tonne Challenge program, although that was not made clear in the news reports.
I shall take as notice the honourable senator's question on the outcome of Premier Fentie's meeting with Minister Baird.
In recent weeks, the government has announced $2 billion for the ecoENERGY Initiatives, respecting clean energy technology, renewable energy and greater efficiency use by Canadians. The Prime Minister announced the new Canada ecoTrust to support provincial and territorial governments. We heard the first part of that announcement yesterday. Unlike the failed voluntary emission reductions approach of the previous government, this government will regulate both greenhouse gases and air pollution with short-term, medium-term and long-term targets.
Aboriginal Economic Development
March 27, 2007
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples released its report on Aboriginal business and economic development last week. The report is now before the Senate.
The report focuses on the phenomenon of Aboriginal people getting into business and using economic development tools to participate in the Canadian economy in an effort to provide jobs for its people and create wealth. It should be obvious to any government that business such as this is important. This is one clear way that Aboriginal people can rise up and thus narrow the gap between those well off and the poorer people in our society.
While there has been a measure of success, there are many other areas in our country where Aboriginal people are having a hard time getting on their economic feet and need the support of government to be successful. Unfortunately, I feel the budget earmarked very little for the serious economic development that we envisage in our report.
My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is this: Would the minister not be partisan and adversarial on this issue? Can she describe how she could be an advocate for the Senate and for the Aboriginal people in her dealings and meetings in cabinet with her colleagues, Mr. Prentice and the Prime Minister? Could she be a help to the Aboriginal people of our country and do something to provide more money for economic development, which is so important?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): Honourable senators, there is no question that the government works very hard to address serious issues with regard to the Aboriginal community. It is not, as my honourable friend quite rightly states, a partisan issue nor should it ever be.
Last year's budget announced $450 million over two years to support priority areas of education, water and housing. Budget 2007 confirms that the $300 million in 2007-08 will continue thereafter as ongoing funding, beyond the funding announcements in Budget 2006. This will mean that close to $1 billion in additional funding is available to the Aboriginal communities between now and 2010.
With regard to the specific issue of assisting Aboriginals to develop careers and open businesses, those suggestions from Senator Sibbeston are worthy and I will endeavour to obtain specific information from the department as to what dollars are earmarked specifically for those areas and how to access those funds.
Global Warming—Initiatives to Assist the Territories
May 17, 2007
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, in the next few weeks, I will take a trip to the Arctic to visit people in some of the Arctic communities. While I am there, I hope to drop in close to the North Pole to see Santa Claus. As you know, Santa Claus is real and true. He lives in the North and depends on cold weather to be happy so that he can make the toys for the people of our country.
Climate change in our country is felt most in the Arctic. Already winters are milder, summers are warmer, and people are seeing birds and insects that elders have never seen before. The climate in the North is truly warming up. Infrastructure such as roads, highways and airports are affected by this warm weather. People of the North, when they heard that the government initially would deal with the issue through the Kyoto accord process, were happy that the government in the South, would do something that may reduce the greenhouse gases that have the effect of warming the North.
The Government of the Northwest Territories is trying to deal with the effects of global warming, but they of course have limited budgets. Is the leader's government willing to do something? What is the government prepared to do to help the governments in the North deal with the effects of global warming?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): Honourable senators, it is too bad the senator started off with the reference to Santa Claus and the North Pole, because this issue is serious. Mentioning Santa Claus is almost as ridiculous as Senator Munson's question asking me where Osama bin Laden is.
Senator Mercer: Conservatives are against Santa Claus.
Senator LeBreton: Making reference to Santa Claus and the North Pole is a little bit beyond the pale.
In any event, the Arctic, in all of its possibilities, is important to this government, not only on the environmental side but also in terms of our sovereignty over our northern waters and, therefore, in terms of our military capability in the North. These issues are all important for our government.
I harken back to the government of John Diefenbaker in the late 1950s and early 1960s when he made a real effort to develop the North and help the livelihood of the people living north of 60. He embarked on a program called "Roads to Resources" that was derided at the time by the Liberals as roads from igloos to igloos. I hope we will not have that situation again. I dare say that had any Conservative ever said that, we would have been roundly criticized from coast to coast to coast.
Honourable senators, the Prime Minister, during the election campaign before Christmas in Winnipeg in December 2005, made an important announcement with regard to Arctic sovereignty.
I can say only that the Arctic is of great importance to the government. We are working on several fronts, and also in conjunction with the governments of the territories. I hope that the government will soon be in a position to make announcements on all fronts with regard to the North.
Senator Sibbeston: Honourable senators, I can see that the Leader of the Government has no sense of humour. I raised the issue of Santa Claus because Canadian children truly think that he lives in the Arctic. I was trying to lighten the atmosphere in here. In the last few days we have heard venomous, viperous remarks from the Leader of the Government. We in the North are not very partisan. We come to this place with a view to doing the best we can for our constituents. What we have heard from the government leader is so partisan that it brings down the worthiness of this place. For her to admonish me about talking about Santa Claus is just not called for, with all due respect.
I said it with a sense of humour. Where is the Leader of the Government's sense of humour? Where is her goodness? Where is her innocence, as it were?
I am asking because I do not like to be admonished and criticized for talking about Santa Claus. I say it sincerely. I am saying I am going to the North. I am going to talk to the people of the North. While I am there, I will look for Santa Claus. Does he not exist at the North Pole? Canadians think that he does. I do not appreciate being admonished in any way by the government leader, and I just say that she is truly a Scrooge!
November 28, 2007
National Parks—Boundaries of Nahanni National Park
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate relates to the Nahanni National Park in the Northwest Territories.
Last August, Prime Minister Harper went to Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories to announce land withdrawals for the expansion of the Nahanni Park. For the past two years, there has been a consultative process held on possible boundaries for the park. There is a debate in our region as to the extent to which the area of the park would be increased, and the park proposes that it be expanded up to seven times. This consultation was completed last week without the release of the Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment, or MERA. The MERA, which is required by the Canada National Parks Act, provides for a geological survey and mineral analysis of the lands that could be included in a future park.
In other words, this consultation process proceeded without an important document, namely, the study that would outline and delineate the extent to which there are mineral resources in that area.
In my view, the consultation process is flawed. People deserve to have all the facts before them when they are considering the expansion of a park and to know the benefits of a park and what the alternatives would be for the use of the lands.
In my view, a new consultation process is required, possibly by someone other than Parks Canada, which has a vested interest in the outcome.
Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate discuss the matter with the Prime Minister or her colleague Mr. Baird and provide assurances that the government will undertake further consultations among all stakeholders before a final decision is taken on the boundary, and that such consultation will include all relevant information, including the MERA?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): I thank the honourable senator for his question. I will definitely seek information on MERA from the Minister of the Environment. The honourable senator will know that the Minister of the Environment announced last week that the government has secured the protection of 10 million hectares for a new national park in the Northwest Territories. This is an area twice the size of the province of Nova Scotia. With regard to the honourable senator's specific question on the consultations, I will be happy to take his question as notice and obtain the information for him.
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, today, Aboriginal people of our country are gathering on the front lawns of Parliament looking to the government for remedies and assistance to lessen the gap between them and the rest of Canadians.
My question also deals with education. Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate confer with her colleague, Mr. Strahl? Education is so important and is the thing that can take people from the bush to the highest level of board rooms and bring societies from poverty to prosperity.
Last year this government did a good thing in passing Bill C-34 wherein it gave Aboriginal people the opportunity to run their own government. That was good and consistent with the principles espoused in the Kelowna First Ministers' meeting and resulting accord. However, the Kelowna accord also had specific targets to improve education outcomes for Aboriginal people with specific timelines to reach those targets.
The previous government identified an amount of more than $1 billion over five years as necessary to reach these targets. By comparison, the current government has provided $125 million for education initiatives.
Would the government consider the matter of the education of Aboriginal people? Rather than having the leader dismiss all questions here, would she go to the trouble of conferring with the minister responsible, Minister Strahl, to see what can be done to have a clear plan with sufficient funds to meet the targets to improve Aboriginal education?
Senator LeBreton: I do not think the honourable senator is fair in characterizing my or the government's concern in these areas as being dismissive. I happen to sit in the cabinet, and I chair the cabinet committee on social affairs, which is consumed with matters relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Even Liberals have dismissed the Kelowna so-called "accord" — the "Kelowna press release," I call it — as a last-gasp effort to change the dialogue on the inaction of the previous government. However, it is obvious to all of us that a highly skilled workforce is necessary for Canada's economic prosperity, most particularly with our Aboriginal community. We have doubled the size of the Aboriginal skills and employment partnership to the degree that approximately 16,000 Aboriginal people will benefit from this investment. Our programs support entrepreneurship and business formation as well as community economic development.
As I think the honourable senator would acknowledge, we are working with a wide range of Aboriginal groups to build a new Aboriginal economic development framework, and we recently strengthened the role of the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board and appointed outstanding new Aboriginal business leaders to the board, including the previously mentioned Chief Louie.
I would be happy to provide a response by way of a delayed answer, but there has been significant investment, millions and millions of dollars, in the various aspects of Aboriginal economic development, training, skills, education. As I mentioned a moment ago in my answer to Senator Hubley, there is the $70 million of investments in Budget 2008, on top of the $1.6 billion we have already dedicated and spent to improve First Nations education outcomes.
Location of Proposed Northern Development Agency
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerns the proposed northern economic development agency and the location of its headquarters. Every region of Canada has a federal agency to promote its economic development. These agencies are headquartered in the regions that they serve.
In Budget 2009, the government announced the long-sought creation of a northern development agency. However, few details were provided. People in the North are concerned that this agency may be located in Ottawa. This would send a poor message about economic development in the North. Northern people are suspect of anything that is situated in Ottawa.
Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate consult with Minister Strahl, who is responsible for the North, and ascertain the government's intention with respect to the headquarters of this northern agency?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Minister of State (Seniors)): The honourable senator is quite right. The North is of great concern to us. That is why we took the step of making a commitment to a northern development agency, and I believe it is a first. Minister Strahl and Minister Aglukkaq were recently in the North making a series of announcements.
With regard to the actual locale where this office will be centred, honourable senators, as the honourable senator suggests, I will seek clarification from my colleague Minister Strahl on how this northern development agency will be structured and whether there will be components of it in Ottawa and in different communities in the North.
Senator Sibbeston: The logical location for this agency would be Yellowknife because it is between the other two territories, and sub-offices could be established in the other regions.
While the Leader of the Government in the Senate ascertains the location from the minister, could she also ascertain when this important agency to the North will be established? That needs to be done as quickly as possible.
Senator LeBreton: As honourable senators know, the government has made significant commitments to the North. As I have mentioned in this place before, it is particularly pleasing to me since I had the opportunity and the honour of working for the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, who had a far reaching vision and plans for the North.
I would be happy, honourable senators, to find out from my colleague the timing and the location. Again, I am very happy to be part of a government that is doing something about the North.
Delayed Answer
Other regional development agencies within the federal government have their head offices in the regions they serve. For example, the head office of Western Economic Diversification is located in Edmonton.
While the location of the head office of the new Northern economic development agency has not yet been announced, there will be offices in all three territories, and one in the National Capital Region. It is anticipated an announcement concerning location of the head office will be made in the near future.
The timing of establishment of the agency is the prerogative of the Prime Minister; it is expected it to be established as early as this summer.
Aboriginal Healing Foundation
March 16, 2010
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question relates to funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. As the Leader of the Government will know, this body has been charged with disbursing funds provided by the federal government to promote healing among Aboriginal people throughout our country. There is no new money announced in the budget for the healing foundation, and funding will cease at the end of March, except for 12 regional centres which will continue for two years, I believe. One hundred and thirty-four community projects will cease to operate.
Much work has been done on the Aboriginal residential schools issue. The government has agreed to a settlement for the abuse, and there is a process in place to deal with the claims. The government and churches have apologized, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is beginning its work. A great deal has been done, but a tremendous amount of healing still needs to take place.
What will the government do to ensure that residential school survivors and their families receive the support and help they need to continue healing? How will the government ensure that the programs reach those who need them most? Will the government consider allocating funds to help maintain the work of community-based projects?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am proud to be part of a government that officially apologized after many years of nothing being done on the residential school issue.
The government thanks and appreciates the Aboriginal Healing Foundation for its dedication in providing healing programs and services to address the experiences of survivors of the residential schools, their families and their communities. Twelve healing centres will continue to provide services until March 2012. We are fulfilling our commitment to provide emotional and mental health support to former residential school students and their family members.
Budget 2010, which the honourable senator's colleague seemed to think contained nothing, announced an additional $199 million over the next two fiscal years. The additional funding provided in the budget will enable Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Service Canada and Health Canada to meet the needs of former residential school students. With the additional funds and the 12 healing centres, the government will continue with this work, although a great deal of it, as the honourable senator has indicated, has already been done by the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, and we appreciate their efforts.
Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, I believe the situation in the North requires the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This issue has to do with the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.
Fifteen months ago the government provided money in Budget 2009 to set up the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. This is much like the Western Economic Diversification program and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Ten months ago, when the government announced that the agency would have its headquarters in Iqaluit, the people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were concerned that a regional agency was being set up so far east. As of today, the majority of the staff for the agency is located in Ottawa. There seems to be a reluctance or inability of people to move to Iqaluit.
Can the government leader see what she can do, first, to rectify the situation by undoing the mistake of establishing the headquarters in Iqaluit and setting it up somewhere that is more central, such as Yellowknife; and second, to get the staff out of Ottawa and into the North?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank the senator for the question. I am sure for the people in Iqaluit it does not matter in what area one is in the North. Some will not necessarily be supportive of the choice of site. The people in Iqaluit are quite pleased with it, I am sure, and others are not. Such is the nature of establishing this agency in the first place, which our government did.
In terms of the staffing, this is a concern of the government. The Prime Minister has stated on his many visits to the North, and also publicly, that he would like to see locally engaged employees. He has made comments that it is rather discouraging to go to these various federally run projects and find that they are staffed by people from the South.
Of course, as the honourable senator knows, through education and much of the work we are doing in the North, the object of this exercise is to create a situation whereby employees who are hired for this work are locally engaged.
In terms of the resource development of the North, through our education, retraining and training programs, we provide skills to people living in the North so that when these projects do come to fruition they will be there, first in line, to benefit from the job opportunities.
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question today is about infrastructure funding in the North. My colleagues Senator Lang and Senator Patterson I am sure will be interested in the response from the government leader.
We are now in the final year of stimulus spending. The ministers responsible for infrastructure spending have frequently stated that any projects not completed by March 31, 2011, will lose their federal funding. Municipal, provincial and territorial governments will be on the hook for the full cost of the projects that go over the deadline.
The North being what it is, remote, distant, with some areas subject to summer sea lift, winter ice roads and short summer work seasons, it is difficult and challenging to start and finish projects. What assurance can the minister give us that planned projects in the northern territories will receive all the promised funding and that small, remote communities and financially strapped territorial governments will not be penalized if the reality of northern construction is in conflict with federal government-imposed timelines?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Senator Sibbeston is quite correct in that the infrastructure and the stimulus programs were designed to deal with the worldwide economic downturn. He is absolutely right that the program is designed to end at the end of the fiscal year, on March 31, 2011, and he is also quite right that all levels of government that have participated in putting these projects together understood the requirements clearly going in.
The honourable senator asked specifically about certain projects. There are some projects, honourable senators, in the North that fall under other areas of government funding. I will have to take the question as notice. Obviously, there are programs under the stimulus fund that must be completed by the prescribed time. There are other projects under way that do not fall into that category, so I will have to obtain a status report for Senator Sibbeston on the various projects and development in the North and where they fit into the overall scheme of things.
Delayed Answer
Budget 2009 created the $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) that provides funding to provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects. Through the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, the Government of Canada has committed over $12 million towards projects in the North (the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut) with a total value of over $28 million.
Projects funded under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund must be completed by March 31, 2011. When applying to the ISF, applicants were required to attest to the fact that their projects could be completed by the deadline. It should be noted that the Government of Canada will pay its share of eligible costs incurred on approved projects up to March 31, 2011.
The Government of Canada understands the difficulties of having to complete time-sensitive projects in the North where construction and acquisition of materials, among other factors, is impacted by seasonal circumstances. However, the main objective of stimulus spending under the Economic Action Plan is to support the Canadian economy during the economic downturn. In short, stimulus spending is intended to be timely, targeted and temporary in order to benefit Canadians when it is most needed.
It should be noted that Infrastructure Canada also has a wide range of other programs aimed at the improvement of public infrastructure, most of which are longer-term programs which allow for more flexibility in project timelines.
In Budget 2007, the Government of Canada announced the $33 billion Building Canada Plan, a historic initiative that advances national priorities that are important to all Canadians: a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and better communities, while addressing local and regional infrastructure needs over a seven-year period (2007-2014). The components of the Building Canada Plan that Infrastructure Canada manages include the $8.8 billion Building Canada Fund (BCF) and the $2,275 million Provincial-Territorial (PT) Base Fund.
The BCF was allocated to jurisdictions on a per capita basis. In recognition of the unique infrastructure challenges in Canada's North, each territory's Building Canada Fund allocation (a total of $26.4 million) has been added to the Provincial/Territorial Base Fund.
The Provincial-Territorial (PT) Base Fund provides a total of $175 million to each jurisdiction to address core infrastructure priorities. In light of the fact that the BCF funding was added to the PT Base allocation for the three territories, Yukon's allocation is $182.9 million, the Northwest Territories' allocation is $185.8 million and Nunavut's allocation is $182.7 million.
In recognition of the unique infrastructure needs of the northern jurisdictions, eligible investments in the three territories also include Northern Infrastructure. In addition, up to three percent of all community-based initiatives submitted under a Capital Plan can be accessed for related administrative costs and up to one percent of each territory's PT Base Fund allocation is available for research, knowledge and feasibility studies, as well as capacity-building initiatives involving communities.
Under Budget 2009, all provinces and territories were offered the opportunity to take advantage of up to $1 billion in accelerated payments. The funds originally planned for the 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 fiscal years were offered during 2009-10 and 2010-11 to those provinces/territories that chose to accelerate and could demonstrate an ability to put these funds to work quickly.
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government. At the end of March, the federal government ended the ecoENERGY Retrofit program. Many homeowners, service providers and companies were negatively affected, as honourable senators can appreciate. In the North — the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut — this program was very effective and used by people to close out the cold and, in their own way, save energy and thus ameliorate the global warming situation. The territorial government will continue to fund their 50 per cent share of the program, but it cannot replace the money lost from the federal government.
We in the North sometimes do not understand the way things happen in the South and why governments do the things they do. Recently it was announced that the federal government would spend $1 billion on security for the G20 and G8 conferences. I am also aware that the government will have to spend billions of dollars on prisons because of their approach to dealing with crime.
We in the North are wondering how the government can justify closing such an effective program, which probably costs just a few million dollars, while at the same time the government is willing to spend billions of dollars on the other measures that I spoke about. We do not understand why the government does these things.
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government is responsible for programs in a host of areas. It is not a situation of trade-offs. Certain monies are allocated for certain areas.
With regard to the ecoENERGY Retrofit program, the government did not cancel the program. The government put a considerable amount of money into the program and, as we all know, the program was very popular and oversubscribed. The ecoENERGY Retrofit program and the Home Renovation Tax Credit program were valuable, especially as part of the economic stimulus in order to get the economy going and to create jobs.
The ecoENERGY Retrofit program was very popular. Like the stimulus package, a certain amount of money was allocated to that program. Government employees are still accepting and dealing with all the applications that are still in the pipeline. However, just like the stimulus package, which will terminate at the end of fiscal year 2010-11, the ecoENERGY Retrofit program was so popular that it was oversubscribed.
Hydroelectric Power Generation in the North
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, this is Canada. It is endearing and good to hear Senator Watt speak one of the Aboriginal languages of our country. I also speak a language spoken in the North, a Dene language. We are not advanced to the point where I can use it in the Senate chamber, but I recognize that this has been done by my colleague, and it is nice to hear.
My question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerns hydroelectric power. The oil fiasco that we see in the Gulf of Mexico, the increasing environmental consciousness about our oil sands development in northern Alberta, and the dangers of environmental catastrophe from offshore drilling for oil make hydroelectric development and other clean sources of power much more attractive.
In the North, we have many rivers that could be used for producing electricity. One such project is the Taltson River hydro project in the southern area of the North. The project is presently undergoing an environmental review process.
In the Throne Speech, the federal government said it would move to clean sources of electricity, but it has not provided any support thus far. A promise has been made by the federal government. I would ask the federal government to act on its promise, particularly with this project in the Northwest Territories.
I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if she would confer with her colleagues, the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, to see if they can assist this hydro project in the North. There is a review process that is being undertaken at present, but there is also a need for a financial kick-start.
Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate do that for the people in the North?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, our government has set an objective that 90 per cent of Canada's electricity needs be provided by non-emitting sources — such as hydro, nuclear, solar or wind power — by 2020. Canada's Economic Action Plan included a $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund to create clean energy generation and a $1 billion Clean Energy Fund to support critical research, development and demonstration of new and innovative renewable projects.
I cannot speak directly to the project about which the honourable senator has referred; however, I would hope that he is well aware of the government's commitment to these kinds of funds. I will be happy to inquire about the specific project the honourable senator mentioned to find out if the application has been received and at what stage of the process that application is.
DELAYED ANSWER
The Government of Canada is making strategic investments in infrastructure that contribute to our economy, job creation, a cleaner environment, and strong and prosperous communities. In Budget 2009, the government announced almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding over two years. Significant new infrastructure investments include the Green Infrastructure Fund (GIF), which will provide $1 billion over five years for the construction of new sustainable energy infrastructure and other green projects.
The GIF provides targeted investments in green public infrastructure that can improve the quality of the environment and will lead to a more sustainable economy over the long term. This fund supports green infrastructure projects on a cost-shared basis. Eligible projects are those that fall within any of the following categories: wastewater infrastructure; green energy generation infrastructure; green energy transmission infrastructure; solid waste infrastructure; and carbon transmission and storage infrastructure. Eligible recipients include provinces, territories, local or regional governments; public sector bodies, non-profit organizations and private companies, either alone or in partnership with a province, territory or a government. Projects are reviewed against assessment criteria such as eligibility, leveraging financial investments and project benefits. In general, this fund has focused on a few, large scale, strategic infrastructure projects.
The Government of Canada recognizes the important economic benefits of the Taltson Hydro Expansion Project to the long-term viability of existing mines and to attracting future mining exploration to the Northwest Territories. However, the project in light of the goals and intentions of the GIF need to be considered.
The focus of the GIF is to support public infrastructure with clear environmental benefits. Currently, the described project would primarily support existing and potential mining development in the Northwest Territories, with some additional benefits in terms of service reliability and potentially, reduced rates over the long term, to communities that are already connected to the transmission grid. While GHG emissions could be reduced, depending on the agreements reached with the mining developments, this project is not consistent with the criteria under the GIF for projects of this nature.
In addition, as proposed, the Government of Canada's contribution would be the only significant equity investment, while the rest of the funding would be borrowed against future earnings.
As a result of the above, the Taltson Hydro Expansion Project was not deemed to be a suitable candidate for funding under the GIF.
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it relates to offshore oil drilling in our country and also possible future drilling in the Beaufort Sea. One of the lessons we have learned from the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is that regulations are useless if they are not enforced. Although the United States has strong regulations, British Petroleum and others were granted exemptions. Although rules required BP to have alternative arrangements in place, no one made sure that they did. Essentially, BP said, as oil companies often do: We are a big, sophisticated company; our technology and methods are state of the art; nothing can go wrong.
Obviously, they were wrong. We have drilling in the ocean off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, this issue is pertinent, since a spill can occur off our shores.
What assurances can the Leader of the Government give us that not only will Canada put in place strict regulatory requirements but that those regulations will be strictly enforced to deal with the offshore drilling that is under way off our shores, and also with respect to any future drilling in the Arctic?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, if one is to believe the reports, many events took place that contributed to the terrible disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Canada has a strict regulatory process, as honourable senators know. The National Energy Board is carrying out a comprehensive review of its drilling requirements at present, which will be open to the Canadian public and which will incorporate information from other regulators. As well, they are watching the ongoing U.S. investigation closely.
As I said last week, drilling will not occur unless the National Energy Board is satisfied that drilling plans are safe for workers and also for the environment. The National Energy Board initiated a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. This review will enhance drilling safety and environmental oversight. As the honourable senator also knows, there are currently no authorizations to drill exploratory wells in the outer Beaufort Sea.
Senator Sibbeston: The Gulf of Mexico is close to the centre of the American oil industry. There are plenty of transportation routes and facilities, and there is easy access to boats and emergency equipment, yet they are still struggling to limit the impacts of this oil spill. Canada's offshore has fewer resources. In the Arctic, transportation is limited and there are few emergency resources on the ground.
What actions is the federal government taking, or planning to take, to ensure that emergency resources will be on location in northern communities in the event of a future oil spill?
Senator LeBreton: I think I have already made it clear, honourable senators, that the National Energy Board is carrying out a comprehensive review of its drilling requirements. This process is an open one whereby the Canadian public will be informed and relevant information will be made fully available. The government has been clear, honourable senators. We expect Canada's regulators to enforce this country's strong environmental standards across the board.
With regard to the Arctic, as honourable senators know, at the present time there are no authorizations to drill in the outer Beaufort Sea.
In view of what has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, the competency of the National Energy Board should provide Canadians with some security that we have systems in place. We will certainly not enter into any enterprise where either the environment or workers are put at risk.
The situation in the United States is unfortunate. The Gulf of Mexico is such an important area to so many people's livelihoods and it is obvious for most Canadians to understand how such a spill would have massive consequences. The government and the National Energy Board are at the forefront of the group that is doing everything possible to ensure that this does not happen in Canada.
Arctic Offshore Drilling Requirements
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question is about the North and particularly about the review of Arctic offshore drilling.
On May 11 of this year, the National Energy Board announced it would conduct a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. A draft scope was released on June 10. The board received 60 submissions during the public comments phase. A revised scope was issued in September.
The review is conducted under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, COGOA. It therefore operates under different rules than the NEB.
Beginning this fall, the NEB will meet with Aboriginal groups, Northern governments and communities. They have committed to consult Northerners.
One concern that has been raised in the NWT is whether or not there will be adequate funds to permit full participation by interested Northerners in the review. COGOA does not provide such assistance as a matter of course. The NEB will do its best to promote full participation. Still, it is doubtful they will be able to assist Aboriginal groups, Northern communities or environmental organizations to do research unless they are provided with funds to do so by government.
What steps will the government take to ensure that all the questions concerning Arctic offshore drilling are answered in this review? Will those measures include participant funding so that all voices are heard and not just those of industry proponents?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wish to assure Senator Sibbeston that actual drilling in the Arctic will not occur unless the National Energy Board is satisfied that the drilling plan is safe, not only for workers but most particularly for the environment. The National Energy Board is, as honourable senators know, conducting a review of the Arctic safety and offshore drilling requirements.
With regard to the honourable senator's specific question about funding for organizations that wish to participate in this review, I will take that part of the question as notice.
Arctic Offshore Drilling Requirements
(Response to question raised by Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston on October 26, 2010)
Since the fall 2010, the National Energy Board has been meeting with Aboriginal groups, Northern communities and Northern governments to gain an understanding of their perspectives in the context of the Arctic review.
Further, the National Energy Board will provide up to $300,000 in funding to assist with travel costs for participation at meetings to discuss and comment on information gathered in the Arctic Review.
In addition, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is providing $120,000 in funding to conduct focused workshops in Northern communities.
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and deals with food prices in the Arctic. The major focus of this government has been Arctic sovereignty. Critical to this sovereignty is the ability of Northern people to live and thrive in their communities.
Honourable senators, a recent story in The Globe and Mail pointed out the tremendous food prices in the communities of Arctic Bay and Nunavut. Prices have always been high, but seem to have spiked recently. Prices are also high in remote communities in the Northwest Territories. For example, one litre of milk in Ulukhaktok on Holman Island today costs $4.35, compared to just over $1 in Ottawa. Three pounds of apples cost $10.84, compared to $2.97 in Ottawa.
Honourable senators, until October 1, 2010, the Food Mail Program subsidized the cost of freight for a wide range of food items and hygiene products. A new program, Nutrition North Canada, subsidizing a shorter list of healthy foods, will come into effect on April 1, 2011. The six-month gap between the programs may have contributed to the spike in food prices.
Can the Leader of the Government provide information on the extent of food inflation in remote communities in the last six months, and tell this chamber how much prices are expected to fall when the new program comes into effect?
Can the Leader of the Government tell honourable senators how much the government is spending on the Nutrition North Canada program compared to the previous Food Mail Program?
Will the leader provide a list of food and hygiene items that were subsidized under the old program that will no longer be covered under the new program?
Can the leader tell me whether the "healthy food" list was compiled in consultation with Northerners or if it was compiled by Ottawa bureaucrats?
Honourable senators, I appreciate that the leader might not have all of the answers today, but she might, in due time, provide me with this information.
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank Senator Sibbeston for his many questions and for his insightful comment. Senator Sibbeston is correct in commenting that I do not have all of that information, but I will be happy to provide the honourable senator with as much information as possible.
As the honourable senator is aware, in our consultations with Northerners they said explicitly that they wanted a subsidy program focused on the most nutritious foods and a more accountable and transparent system.
When the Nutrition North Canada program comes into effect on April 1, as the honourable senator pointed out, it will ensure Northerners benefit from improved and increased access to nutrition and affordable foods. As honourable senators undoubtedly know, this program is based on an extensive engagement with Northerners.
Minister Duncan has met with the advisory board representing Nutrition North to discuss their mandate, which includes listening to Northerners, responding to their needs and being a voice for them in this important area.
I cannot debate the honourable senator's statements about the high cost of food in the North. When I was in Iqaluit and Inuvik, I was, as a Central Canada consumer, horrified at the prices Northerners pay. This is a great concern to all Canadians.
The Nutrition North Canada program will be advantageous. The work that Minister Duncan is doing with the various organizations is to ensure that food is nutritious and reasonably priced.
Honourable senators, I will take as notice the portion of the honourable senator's question dealing with the historical analysis of the products and the list of products contained in the new program.
Highways in Northwest Territories
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question relates to highways in the Northwest Territories. The government in the recent budget identified $150 million for the highway from Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk. This will complete the Dempster Highway, which goes from the Yukon to the Northwest Territories and then to the Arctic Ocean. People in the delta area are very happy about the government's decision about the highway.
There is another area in the North, the Sahtu area. This is the Great Bear area, the middle of the North. If the Mackenzie Highway, which has been started but has not been completed, were completed, people in the North would be very happy. Some work has already been done on the highway. There has been mapping and some of the bridges have been built. People anticipate that some day the highway will be completed.
I believe the Leader of the Government in the Senate knows Cece McCauley, a former chief from Inuvik who lives in Norman Wells. Cece McCauley has been working tirelessly to have the highway built. She feels that the Sahtu are missing out on many economic opportunities. She feels the price of food and goods are too high because of the lack of a highway. After making the determination that the male leaders in the area were not doing enough, she spearheaded and organized the Women Warriors of Sahtu, a group of women that has taken it upon themselves to get the highway built. They have even made dolls and are selling them to provide money for their activities. They have come to Ottawa to meet with ministers in the past but, thus far, to no avail.
Honourable senators, I ask that the government leader raise the issue of this good project for the North with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs. This project will strengthen Canadian sovereignty, realize a great deal of economic benefit and open up a resource rich area. If this government would consider completing the Mackenzie Highway from Wrigley to Inuvik, that would be very good. This would endear the government to the people of the North in a very real way.
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I appreciate the honourable senator's comments. I know Cece McCauley very well. She has been a trailblazer in all areas of development of the North and in representing the people of the North.
Honourable senators, I am also very proud of our government's commitment to the North. Senator Sibbeston mentioned the commitment to the Dempster Highway. It was not only discussed many times during the recent election campaign, but also in the Throne Speech and the budget. We committed, as was mentioned, $150 million to complete the Dempster Highway, by linking Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk. I am sure you will not mind me mentioning that the commitment of this government continues the work of a former Conservative government headed by the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, who was the first Canadian Prime Minister to recognize the importance and the value of the North, and of course established the town of Inuvik, among other things.
When Mr. Diefenbaker advanced the development of the North, he embarked upon a program called Roads to Resources. Unfortunately, at the time the then Liberal opposition but soon to be Liberal government under Lester B. Pearson derided this wonderful initiative by calling it a project of roads from igloo to igloo, which I think is still a very shameful thing to have said.
Our Arctic agenda, of course, honourable senators, focuses on the four pillars: sovereignty, promoting economic and social development, providing environmental protection, and devolving governance so that northerners have control over their future and destiny. This is what the government will continue to do.
Further to the honourable senator's specific suggestions with regard to the Mackenzie Highway, I will take that part of the question as notice and provide further information at a later time.
Response November 15, 2011
(Response to question raised by Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston on June 22, 2011)
The Government of Canada is making strategic investments in infrastructure that contribute to our economy, job creation, a cleaner environment, and strong and prosperous communities. In Budget 2011, the government announced $150 million over five years, starting in 2012-13 to support the construction of an all-season road between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories. Long identified as a priority by the Government of the Northwest Territories, this road will connect Canada from coast to coast to coast by extending the Dempster Highway to the Arctic coast. It will also strengthen Canada's arctic presence and contribute to economic and social development in the North.
The Government recognizes the important economic and social benefits of the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk all-season road, and remains committed to working in partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories, the private sector, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and local communities to support this project.
The Government of Canada recognizes that the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk all-season road is a part of a larger Territorial initiative to complete a 1000 km all-weather road from Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik and southwards to join the Northwest Territories highway network at Wrigley. In January 2010, in partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), the Government of Canada provided $3 million toward the completion of a $7-million Project Description Report on the Wrigley to Dempster segment.
Through its infrastructure programs, in particular the Provincial-Territorial Base Fund, the Government of Canada has made significant investments in the North. We are pleased that the implementation of this program in the Northwest Territories has been very successful, and the NWT's allocation under the PT Base of $185.8 million has been allocated to infrastructure priorities identified by the territorial government.
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: My question to the Leader of the Government today deals with regulatory reform in the Northwest Territories.
In the Northwest Territories, lands and resources is a complex issue because it is not just Crown land; it is lands that are owned by First Nations, and the territorial government is also there. In recent years, the federal government has taken some initiative in streamlining, simplifying and making more efficient the regulations that govern land use, environmental matters and approval for economic projects.
A number of years ago, Mr. McCrank, from Calgary, produced a report dealing with the matter. More recently, John Pollard, from Hay River, studied the matter. Both of them have provided reports to the government and the minister.
I would like the government leader to confer with Minister Duncan and tell him that the matter of regulatory reform in the North has been studied and reported on. What northerners need now is a decision. Will you please tell the minister to hurry up?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. I very much appreciate his question and the detail it provided.
I will be very happy to communicate his request to the minister. I do not know how far I would get by telling people to hurry up, but I will be happy to seek direction from the minister as to the status of these files.
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Project
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question is similar to the question I asked before the break. It relates to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. The Mackenzie Valley Pipeline would be a very big project, and it is important for the North and for all of Canada. In fact, the Aboriginal people in the North are supportive of the project and would have one third interest in it. The proposal has been dealt with in all the communities. A number of years ago the proponents of the pipeline went to the communities and met with the people, and there have been environmental hearings. Review boards have approved the pipeline and, more recently, the National Energy Board gave approval to the project, as has the cabinet.
What is now left is for the federal government to agree on some fiscal arrangement with the proponents so the pipeline can go ahead. Considering that in the last year the federal government made a fiscal arrangement on a hydro project in Labrador, it is believed that, perhaps, a similar arrangement could be made regarding the pipeline in the North.
I ask the Leader of the Government whether she would confer with her colleague in the same tone: Hurry up and make a decision with respect to the project.
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. The North has an excellent representative in Senator Sibbeston for promoting its interests.
As honourable senators know, the government is very committed to the North and to the development of the North.
As the honourable senator mentioned, the National Energy Board recently approved this project, and I have been made aware that meetings have taken place recently with key stakeholders and that more meetings are planned in the near future.
It is important to underscore that going ahead with this project is an extremely important business decision. Of course, this decision is made by private companies, and the government will continue to work diligently with the private sector to ensure this project moves forward in an efficient and timely manner.
November 17, 2011
Consideration of Northern and Aboriginal Peoples in Drafting of Criminal Justice Legislation
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, yesterday I made a statement about the omnibus crime bill and how the bill may affect the Northwest Territories, where approximately 88 per cent of the present jail population is native people. I suspect that the situation is much the same in Nunavut and perhaps to a lesser extent in the Yukon.
The Minister of Justice in the Northwest Territories has recently expressed concern about the likely effect of the bill with regard to costs and overcrowding. There will be more people in jail for longer periods under the new crime bill.
In the North most people in jail are there not because they are criminals in the southern sense. Most of them are in jail because of social problems. It must be recognized that the Aboriginal people in the North come from a different, more ancestral way of life.
Over the last 50 years, they have come from a very historical life on the land to live in the towns and larger centres in the North. It is very socially difficult and disruptive for people going through this change. Because of this, many native people end up in jail not because, as I said, they are criminals, but because of social problems.
Has the government, in drafting its crime bill, taken the people, such as the Aboriginal people in the North, into consideration, recognizing that the bill will likely affect them in a very adverse and harsh way?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, obviously the government received a very strong mandate from the Canadian electorate, as it was part of our stated commitment, to pass our crime legislation within 100 sitting days. The bill is presently making its way through Parliament. When it makes its way to the Senate, and then to committee, there will be some opportunities to present concerns and ask questions with regard to the specific measures in the bill and whether things were taken into consideration.
I do, though, want to state, honourable senators, that the Minister of Justice has been working very closely with his provincial and territorial counterparts and he will continue to do so. The honourable senator quite properly and correctly mentioned the different social concerns and the different makeup of a potential prison population in our North. I am certain that there will be great sensitivity toward this. He is correct that it is a different dynamic altogether.
One of the things, though, that I believe that all ministers of justice, whether from the territories or the provinces, have stated is that one of the many positive outcomes of the new crime legislation is the deterrent factor. Perhaps in our communities, as we work with our young people, the fact that they will have to consider the consequences of their actions may, in many cases, prevent the action from ever taking place.
Having said that, Senator Sibbeston always asks reasonable questions on behalf of his constituents and he is to be applauded for that. I would urge him, when the bill comes to the Senate, not only to speak up in the chamber here on second reading, but also to follow it through committee.
I will make the Minister of Justice aware of Senator Sibbeston's concerns in this regard.
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, the correctional system in the Northwest Territories uses what is called dynamic supervision as a way of managing inmates. This allows staff to mingle with prisoners and identify and prevent problems before they get out of hand.
This only works because northern jails are different from southern jails. They are full, but for the moment they are not bursting at the seams. If they are forced to handle more prisoners this system will change, making these institutions much more dangerous for inmates and staff.
Some provinces have said they will reduce the number of cases they will prosecute. In the North, it is the federal government that controls who gets prosecuted and, therefore, how many new prisoners will be sent to jail.
Given the major role Canada has in determining how many northern inmates there will be, will the federal government ensure that northern territories will have sufficient resources to manage an increase in the number of prisoners? Further, will Canada provide the territories with increased capital and operating funds for their correctional system?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will take that question as notice and seek a more detailed answer. However, in terms of prison populations, I think there has been some hysterical misinformation floating around.
In many cases, the longer sentencing just means that the same person is in prison for a longer period of time. Under the existing system, there is quite strong evidence that it is not a new prisoner but the same prisoner returning. There is some misinformation floating around.
Again, honourable senators, I will send along Senator Sibbeston's question for a more definitive answer. There will be ample opportunity in this place to fully explore all of the questions that we have about the legislation. As it has been pointed out many times, the bill takes into its entirety many pieces of legislation that have been debated here for up to five or six years.
November 23, 2011
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, recently plans were announced for a new oil and gas drilling program near Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories that will use hydraulic fracturing, commonly called "fracking." This technique is widely used in some areas of North America, but is prohibited in others over concerns about water safety. This is of great concern in the North, where little is known about aquifers and other geological structures affecting water.
At the same time that this proposal has come forward, it has come to light that fracturing has already been used by an oil company in the Cameron Hills area of the Northwest Territories. This occurred on a small scale for several years and only came to light when the company expanded its operation and had to change from a Type "B" Water Licence to a Type "A" Water Licence. This is an example of the regulatory gaps that currently exist in the North. The patchwork of the federal and territorial systems not only creates problems for economic development, but also for environmental protection.
How will the government ensure, when they finally move forward with regulatory reform, that the new system will be seamless in its operation so that development can proceed in a timely and sustainable manner while the environment is protected?
With respect to fracturing and other innovative industrial techniques, what will the government do in advance of full regulatory reform to ensure that these are not used in the North without proper oversight by regulators and without public knowledge?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the development of our North is an important aspect of Canada's future. There are concerns unique to the North with regard to the environment and different procedures used. The honourable senator raised a question about fracturing, which is technical in nature and applies to specific development. I will take the question as notice and provide a written answer.
February 1, 2012
Regulatory Process
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate deals with regulatory reform.
The government has recently announced plans to reform the regulatory process in Canada. As you know, I have often advocated for changes to the regulatory process in the North. Projects are simply taking too much time and have become very costly. Industry needs certainty to succeed.
At the same time, Canadians want the environment to be protected and the integrity of the regulatory process maintained.
Changes can be made to make the system both more efficient and more effective. Efficiency means predictable timelines and no wasted efforts. Effectiveness means that projects with net social and economic benefits can proceed in an environmentally sound manner while dangerous ones are stopped.
The rights of Aboriginal people, whether confirmed by land claims or still under negotiations, as in British Columbia, must also be respected. Recently, various ministers have made provocative statements regarding the regulatory process, especially around the Northern Gateway pipeline. The Minister of the Environment has described his department as a strategic partner of business and talks about improving efficiency of the regulatory process. He does not mention effectiveness.
A paper prepared by government officials in international trade described First Nations as adversaries of the government when it comes to development, and more seriously called the National Energy Board an ally. Although those ministers have disavowed the contents of this paper, there is now a public perception that the government has taken sides and is endangering the integrity of the regulatory process.
What steps will the government take to ensure the reform of the regulatory process is transparent, inclusive of all stakeholders and leads to a regulatory system that is both efficient in supporting development and effective in protecting the environment?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. He makes reference to comments by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment on processes going forward to ensure that applications are dealt with in a timely manner. I do not have specific details, because the ministers have indicated an interest in working and streamlining this area. I will take that portion of the honourable senator's question as notice and ask for a report as to where we stand at the moment.
However, I do wish to point out that all of the processes they are involved in now go through a careful and comprehensive review process. The government does stand behind its position and wants to absolutely ensure that any proposal is safe, economically good for the country and environmentally sound.