Plan Nord, money-maker or money-hole?

To balance the steamroller of industrial development poised to hit northern Quebec, Plan Nord promises to protect 50 per cent of the land from development. But a new study questions whether this will result in too little land being protected, too late. (FILE IMAGE)

While Inuit in Nunavik wonder what Plan Nord’s mines, dams, roads, ports and influx of outside workers will mean to their region, southern Quebec researchers have crunched figures to see if Premier Jean Charest’s northern development scheme is worth its money.

And opinion about their conflicting forecasts has divided Charest’s Liberals and the Parti Québécois.

On one side of the divide, there’s a recent study by SECOR, an international management consulting firm, which says Plan Nord will bring economic prosperity to Quebec over the next 25 years: 37,200 new jobs and government revenues of $781 million a year — or more.

Wealth creation stemming from the Plan Nord will reach about $5.9 billion per year, its economic benefits assessment says, concluding that “the overall economic benefits could be substantial and eventually surpass” current forecasts.

On the other side there’s a report from by a non-profit think tank IRIS, the Institut de recherche et d’informations socio-ecominiques, released this week.

The study concludes Quebec’s job forecasts under Plan Nord are overly optimistic. It says mechanization in the mining industry is likely to whittle down the number of new jobs created.

And Plan Nord’s vow to protect 50 per cent of northern Quebec from industrial development over the next 25 years raises questions, this study says: such as whether, at this pace, Quebec will protect land from mining or end up protecting land that’s either been already mined or is unsuitable for development.

As well, Quebec may find that Plan Nord comes with a social price-tag, the IRIS study suggests.

This study looks at Fort McMurray, Alberta, a city that saw a boom in its population and a rise in its cost of living after the development of the Alberta oil sands, along with increases in crime levels and the number of homeless people.

“Without assuming that northern Quebec will undergo an accelerated development like that of Fort McMurray, this example lets us think about the population explosion that this region will experience,” it says.

The study also says Plan Nord is no get-rich-quick answer for Quebec: the $1.2 billion that Quebec plans to spend on Plan Nord infrastructure in the next five years won’t be enough.

The final tally will come in at $6.1 billion in “expenses, investments and costs of all sort” to meet the mining needs of developers.

Taxpayers, it suggests, will have to pay the bill while mining companies make money.

And what Quebec may end up with is “very fleeting economic development” because the value of metals and minerals may also change.

Charest immediately rejected the IRIS study.

But Pauline Marois, head of the PQ, endorsed it.

Luc Ferland, the MNA for Ungava and the PQ’s critic on northern development, said the IRIS study shows that there are few benefits in Plan Nord for people in the North.

“We’ve said from the beginning: the marketing plan of the North will not benefit local people and Quebecers. In the North we are short of housing, training centres and services for the population. But Jean Charest only thinks about mining. Local communities feel forgotten,” Ferland said in a March 15 PQ news release.

“Somewhat surprisingly, the plan is presented by Jean Charest over the world, but has not yet been to call on people who live in northern Quebec. It speaks volumes about his true intentions.”