Debates of May 26, 2005 (day 2)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was interested today in the Minister’s statement related to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I guess I will address my questions most appropriately to Mr. Bell. We have been following the activities of some of the Cabinet Ministers and the Premier as they have traveled to Ottawa to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister to talk about money to address the socioeconomic concerns. This seems to have been precipitated by the announcement by Imperial Oil that they felt that there were too many requests to the access and benefit agreements. So our government responded, I believe, by traveling to Ottawa and meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Anne McLellan, to see if there was a way to relieve the industry of the complete responsibility for some of the social and economic issues that were being raised by aboriginal governments.

After the initial trip, which I believe included a meeting with Minister Goodale, the Premier had an opportunity again, I believe with his Minister, Mr. Bell, to meet with some of the aboriginal leaders in Calgary to talk about a domestic deal, as I like to call it, in terms of how federal money could be appropriated in a way that would take some of the pressure off of industry in negotiating with the aboriginal governments. When this amount of $100 million that we have heard about was raised after the Calgary meeting, was that anywhere close to the amount that was talked about in your…I understand it is under negotiation, but in your first meeting in Ottawa with Minister McLellan, was the $100 million a new number or was it close to what you had initially discussed? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Member has accurately laid out the chain of events. But I would say that when we first met with the Deputy Prime Minister with also Ministers Goodale, Scott and Blondin-Andrew, we didn’t get down to specific numbers. We identified the challenge. We indicated that we are aware of why Imperial Oil had gotten to this point in their assertion that what properly constituted access and benefit agreements was not all that was being requested here. We acknowledge as governments that we have a responsibility and a role here and the federal government has a responsibility and a role to fund this area because we don’t get the revenues that we need in order to make these investments. But we made the point very clearly at that meeting that we had a sense in terms of our own numbers from this government, the kinds of pressures that we were likely to see up and down the valley for the development, but that was an incomplete picture. The next step was for us to go and sit down with some of the aboriginal leadership and talk about the pressures that they were feeling and come back with a comprehensive number. It was really preliminary at that point to get into a negotiation around numbers without having input from aboriginal governments, which is why we didn’t do it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, whatever the number was initially or might end up to be at the end of the day, was this amount of money considered to be some kind of an interim payment or down payment on a tentative royalty sharing program with the federal government? Is it considered a bridge or an interim down payment? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. We had a long discussion around resource revenue sharing and the projected timeline for money to flow to northern governments. Optimistically, we were talking about probably 2007-08. Federal legislation would have to be changed in order for us to start to receive royalty revenues. What we were talking about was a way to bridge us to that point. We have pressing needs of communities up and down the valley now. We know royalty revenues can’t flow until 2007-08. We have a need now. We needed a bridge to get us there. That is why we entered into this discussion around the socioeconomic impact fund that would take us until the time that our revenues started to flow from that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about is if we take this bridge funding which is not a bad idea and understandable to take the pressure off of some of the socioeconomic issues, that without the existence of an agreement-in-principle on what the actual deal will look like for us down the road, I am just worried about them throwing us some money and then that will somehow take the pressure off of them to realize that we need an AIP. We need something with some specifics in it before we can see this actually proceed. I don’t want them throwing us some money and saying go away. Is this amount of money in any way, in the Minister’s mind, going to delay the progress on the AIP which will have the real meat in it for ongoing royalties for the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. Our Premier and Finance Minister were very clear with the federal Ministers and with the Deputy Prime Minister that these were really on parallel courses. We wanted to sit down with our aboriginal partners and negotiate some bridge funding to deal with social impacts, but our key priority and the priority of northern governments was to get a resource revenue sharing deal and an AIP by this summer. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister came out in public and articulated the government’s support for getting a deal done. I believe she used, I could check on this, by the end of June I think was the timing. So that was the time frame we were shooting for anyway. I could certainly check the press announcements around that, but there was an acknowledgement by the federal government that we needed to get that AIP done, as well. We are still moving forward on that. That involves not only ourselves and the federal government, but the summit and aboriginal governments, so it is important for us to work together to move toward that. Certainly, that is our priority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that industry representatives, i.e., the producers group, would be lead to believe that this fund, whatever it turns out to be that would flow to our government and aboriginal governments, is going to lessen their responsibility in terms of the negotiations on the access and benefit agreements that are being proposed by aboriginal governments up and down the valley? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. It is difficult for me to know what the producers believe, but my sense is that the producers are looking for a framework or a box that access and benefits can be negotiated in. They believe that there are certain things that make up access and benefits, an amount of money, essentially a rent for use of the land. That is the realm they would like to see this in. However, they acknowledge that there are all of these other socioeconomic impacts in communities that need to be adequately dealt with, but they believe they are the responsibility of government. I believe that is also the case. So they do have a responsibility, environmentally and to the people of the North, to make sure that we benefit from this project, but it is impossible for us as governments to simply close our eyes to some of the impacts in communities and try to put it all off on the project and the project proponents. That is why we have gone to the federal government to say you’ve got to step up to the plate with the funding. These services and programs that need to be delivered are ones that are in our mandate and the mandate of aboriginal governments. We are prepared to do that, given that we have the money. I think the producers group see it exactly that same way, but I don’t think they are looking to shirk their responsibilities in any way. I think they want to do a good project that is well received. They know they need grassroots support for this. I believe they are approaching that earnestly and with best intentions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final third supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

Thank you. So the trip to Ottawa then to secure this bridge money in the interim here was postponed because of the vote that was taking place around the budget in the House of Commons. What is next? What is the game plan on the part of this government? I just don’t want us to drop the ball on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 20-15(4): Socioeconomic Impacts Of Pipeline Development

We agree that we need to keep the pressure up on getting this bridge funding. The voting in Ottawa and the uncertainty obviously impacted our ability to get a meeting, but we had some work to do prior to that meeting. We and the aboriginal governments had to sit down to quantify the impacts and be able to put enough detail and substantiation behind our ask that the federal government could move that forward and talk to the Treasury Board about that. There was some work for us to do. We have had meetings now and I believe going on this week in Ottawa with our senior staff and federal government senior staff possibly also in Calgary. We are now looking to next week or the week after to press for another political meeting to see if we can get a final deal on the table. We hope that we are very close, but we are certainly not letting up on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.