Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 5:00 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
Mr. Tonu Onu, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chairman. At this time I would invite any nominations for the position of chairperson.
Senator Andreychuk: I would be pleased to nominate Senator Marchand.
Mr. Onu: Seeing no other nominations, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk that the Honourable Senator Marchand be chairman of the committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Onu: I declare the motion carried, and I invite Senator Marchand to take the chair.
Hon. Len Marchand (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: I wish all elections were like that. Thank you very much for this honour again. I have done the job once before, and I am very happy to do it again. I look forward to active times ahead.
The next item on the agenda is the election of a deputy chair. I would invite nominations for the position of deputy chair.
Senator Carstairs: I move that Senator Andreychuk be deputy chair.
The Chairman: Are there any further nominations? If there are none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item on the agenda relates to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, or the steering committee. The motion reads as follows:
That the Subcommittee be composed of the Chair, the Deputy Chair and one other member of the committee to be designated by the Chairman after the usual consultation;
That the Subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda and procedure;
That the Subcommittee be empowered to invite witnesses and schedule hearings; and
That the Subcommittee report its decisions to the committee.
Senator Carstairs: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item on the agenda is the motion to print the committee's proceedings. It is suggested that 500 copies be printed for distribution. Could someone move that motion?
Senator Beaudoin: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next item on the agenda is the authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present. The motion reads as follows:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present.
Would someone move that motion?
Senator Pearson: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Item number 7 on the agenda relates to the financial report. The motion reads as follows:
That, pursuant to rule 104, the committee be authorized to report expenses incurred in the preceding session.
Do I have a mover?
Senator Taylor: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Item number 8 on the agenda relates to research staff, and that research officers assigned to committees are to be recruited through the Library of Parliament or externally. The motion reads as follows:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to the committee; and/or
That the committee retain the services of the Parliamentary Centre as researcher to the committee; and/or
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to negotiate the contracts and retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the Chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses and summaries.
Do we have a mover?
Senator Anderson: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Agenda item number 9 relates to the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. The motion reads as follows:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chair or, in the Chair's absence, the Deputy Chair; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the Chair, the Deputy Chair and/or the Clerk of the committee.
Senator Carstairs: Perhaps we could discuss this item, because it came up during the organizational meeting of the previous committee. "And/or" reads as if the clerk would require another signature. We suggested that the "and" be taken out and be replaced with just "or".
The Chairman: That makes sense.
Senator Carstairs: I move the motion as amended.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item number 10 on the agenda relates to travelling and living expenses of witnesses. The motion reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment may take place upon application.
Do I have a mover?
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is there any discussion with respect to the time slot for our meetings? I have chatted with a couple of senators about the time slot.
Senator Carstairs: Three of us also sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. With the time slot presently slated at 5 o'clock on Wednesdays, it is certainly not easy for us. If we go over time with our witnesses in the other committee, we will miss the meetings of this committee.
I understand that a time slot may be available on Tuesday morning. I do not know how other senators feel about that, but I would love to see a time slot on Tuesday morning at 9:30.
Senator Pearson: I would as well.
The Chairman: It is always a mater of juggling with other committees for time. Tuesday morning at 9:30 is certainly a wonderful time for me. It is a good slot.
Senator Andreychuk: The problem with this committee is that when it was structured, it was an added committee. The question is where it should be. The time slot assigned to this committee was Monday afternoon. Of course, that posed all kinds of problems. We have since had negotiations with the whips, the clerks, the Hansard reporters, et cetera. The 5:15 time slot was a combination of when members of the committee, the reporters and the translators were available. I suggest that if you prefer Tuesday morning, you should tentatively agree to that and work it out.
The Chairman: There is always a conflict.
Senator Beaudoin: Perhaps there is another alternative. Since you must consult the whips, perhaps we could delegate this question to a steering committee, and the chair will decide after meeting the whips.
This is perhaps not the way to make such a decision, because we do yet not know whether or not Tuesday morning is free. I am ready to pass this decision along to the steering committee.
Senator Carstairs: I agree.
The Chairman: Is Tuesday morning at 9:30 acceptable to those who are here?
Senator Beaudoin: Yes.
The Chairman: That gives us a good indication. We will try to fight for that time slot. It is a good time.
Are there other matters honourable senators wish to discuss at this time?
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Tkachuk is in another meeting, and he wanted to be here. He proposes that the bill he introduced, Bill S-10, be continued in this committee on the same basis as when we had already started the deliberations. There was a plan of action, and he would like it continued. This falls into line with what the government has indicated it is doing by proposing to pick up the legislation that was enroute to the Senate under the legislation that they have proposed. He thought it was in keeping with the government's way of working and he wanted it pursued. I am conveying that message to you.
Senator Carstairs: For those who were not on the committee during the last session, Bill S-10 is not yet before us. We are in the peculiar position whereby the subject-matter of Bill S-10 is before the committee, but not the bill itself. In such a situation, my preference would be that we go back to the Senate and ask for a decision to be made as to whether or not the committee is to study Bill S-10.
On the other hand, I would be very reluctant to have the subject-matter of Bill S-10 back before the committee. My reason, quite frankly, is the same as I gave earlier: I think it is raising expectations that are not deliverable to the aboriginal people who support that piece of legislation. If we are to study the bill, let us study the bill. Let us not play games with it and study the subject-matter of the bill. It is extremely critical that we not break faith with our aboriginal people. It is my feeling that this whole exercise was about doing just that.
Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps I could say, then, that there is some reluctance to pick up the agenda where we left off. That order of reference came to us, not because this committee chose to study the subject-matter but as a result of some discussion between the leadership of both sides, and particularly aboriginal members of the Senate. On that basis, if it was the will of the leadership, the will of the chamber and the will of the aboriginal senators, I would not interfere with it, although it created a very difficult situation.
I would propose, in fairness, since this organizational meeting was put together quickly, that Senator Tkachuk have an opportunity to be here and to present his position. I am sure I am not doing it justice. I think he would like that opportunity.
The Chairman: I do not think we have the authority as a committee to do that. The instruction would need to come from the house.
Senator Roux: Forgive my ignorance, but what is Bill S-10?
Senator Andreychuk: Bill S-10 was an attempt at a framework agreement for certain reserves in Alberta to manage their affairs -- in other words, to delegate to the band chiefs certain powers that are presently held under the Indian Act, and allow them to manage their affairs on a community basis. It is a community framework. It may be one example of self-government for natives, although not necessarily the one that the government has put forward. We were studying the subject-matter of that bill.
Senator Pearson: This is an opportunity to float the ideas that we would like to have considered. First, on that particular subject, I would need clarification because I understood that, with prorogation, everything died. I leave that there. There must be discussion with leadership about what to do. Second, I am nervous about the precedent, because there is another bill floating around at the moment in the Senate. Whether it would ever arrive before us here, I do not know, and I will not go any further than that. Precedents in which we study subject-matters make me a little nervous.
Third, I would hope that, during the second session of this Parliament, we would have a chance to look at the opportunity for at-risk, off-reserve aboriginal youth. I feel it is an issue, and I think the chair is deeply concerned with this issue as well. It is an issue that many of us on this committee would like to have some chance to consider, and to find out whether we might come forward with something positive. There are a number of pieces in the mix, such as the report of the royal commission. However, it is easy for us to find a piece that no one else is actually looking at, and one that is more positive. I think there is opportunity here with the Senate for an intergenerational connection that I would particularly like, and we might even have some young people come and talk to us. I merely float that suggestion.
Senator Andreychuk: That was one issue we had already identified as part of our work plan. We put Bill S-10 first and that second. The third issue was, since the royal commission should be filing their final report sometime in the next year, that we might have some sessions with some of the people from the commission or elsewhere, to help us understand the full extent of that commission report and study so that we would be in a position to be part of any process to facilitate those recommendations. Many of them are deep and complex.
Senator Taylor: I am interested in health care for aboriginal peoples and how it interfaces. The provinces are in charge of health care, but there is a gap through which our aboriginal people are falling. They are a so-called federal responsibility, yet at the same time they are citizens of the province within which they live. I do not think they are getting a fair shake on their medical care. It does not equate to what they should get as citizens of a province, let alone as aboriginal people.
Senator Carstairs: I agree with all of the proposals. There is a further one in which I have a particular interest, and it would not be a very long study. I would like to meet with departmental officials to get update on what is happening in relation to treaty land entitlements. In my province, we have been negotiating for years, and we are going nowhere fast. I would like to hear from officials and, perhaps over a few meetings, try to determine what the status is, and what if anything can be done. It may or may not result in us doing further work, but I would like to know what the status quo is for many of our aboriginal peoples.
Senator Andreychuk: I have one other suggestion, and I hope it is timely. The royal commission has just made some comments on the justice system and native justice components. The government has initiated some changes. I know that certain provincial governments are looking at some sort of co-management of the justice issue, either in relation to sentencing or with respect to the whole of the administration of justice.
My continuing preoccupation over 30 years has been the fact that the aboriginal community is oversubscribed within the justice system. I would like, perhaps, some study on the facts and fictions so that we might bring ourselves up to date, and perhaps put a new spotlight on the fact that we are placing people into custody whom I believe could be, and should be, dealt with elsewhere.
The Chairman: What about Senator Carstairs' suggestion? Is there any further comment on her suggestion that perhaps we might get an overview from the minister and the officials? Perhaps it is a beginning. Is this what you had in mind, Senator Carstairs? There are a million issues out there into which we could dig.
Senator Carstairs: We must start from somewhere. That is just one issue. I think it is appropriate for the steering committee to come up with a group of areas, and then we can rank them, for lack of a better word.
Senator Pearson: Some areas overlap, so there may be ways in which one hearing can serve two purposes.
Senator Beaudoin: I would certainly be in favour of a proposal to that effect, because this question is already complicated.
In addition, we have some legal problems and some constitutional law issues. You need to be a specialist to be on this committee. If the experts in the administration can give us a synopsis, I would be strongly in favour of that.
The Chairman: Perhaps we should do that. It may be useful for the committee to have a session or two with officials for a wide open debate. They can give us an overview of where things are. We could ask that they be prepared to answer all kinds of questions, from the treaty issue in Manitoba, to the justice report, to the status of treaty negotiations in B.C. We need an overview in order to to get ourselves oriented. Does that sound about right?
Senator Beaudoin: I have another question. When do you expect -- perhaps we do not know at this stage -- the report of the royal commission?
Senator Carstairs: June of 1996 is the last date I was given. They have had about four postponements at this point.
Senator Andreychuk: I thought it was September.
Senator Pearson: I asked last week, and they said it would not be before the fall. It depends on whom you ask. This is another question which we can ask of the officials.
Some of these things can be dealt with by a subcommittee, particularly the youth issues. Some issues are of tremendous interest to all members, such as hearing from the officials and assessing some of the legal and constitutional issues raised by Senator Beaudoin. Those issues are here already, and they are being amplified. We need some clarity soon.
Senator Andreychuk: Some of our members are absent today. I suggest we canvass all of the members of the committee, and that the chairman put together a list vetted with the steering committee. We can then discuss the list before the whole committee and rate the issues.
The Chairman: Senator Andreychuk will be on the steering committee. Should we begin immediately to arrange an overview with the minister? It takes time to get him and his officials tied down.
Senator Pearson: It is safe to go ahead with that.
The Chairman: Could we take that as direction to go ahead with that right away?
Senator Andreychuk: I think so.
The Chairman: We will set up an overview session with the minister and his officials. We can then talk about the other issues as they arise.
The committee adjourned.
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 5, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-6, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Deputy Chair) in the Chair.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, this meeting was called to deal with Bill C-6, which amends the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
We have with us today Mr. Beaubier, Director General of the Natural Resources and Environment Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada. We also have Mr. Hodgkinson, Chief of the Mining Legislation and Resource Management Division from the same department, and Mr. Gilbert Groulx, Legal Advisor from the Legal Services of the same department.
Perhaps, Mr. Beaubier, you could make some opening comments, and then senators will no doubt have some questions.
Mr. Hiram Beaubier, Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch: I would start by perhaps putting into context our request to have amendments to the Yukon Quartz and Placer Mining Acts.
Currently, we have two acts in the Yukon Territory which leave a noticeable hole in the department's ability to manage mining properties and to meet the expectations of the Yukon public and Canadians. Currently, the legislation does not provide for any specific controls on environmental matters as they relate to the exploration phase of mining development in Yukon, either in placer or in the hard rock industry, except where water is involved. There is a gap which will allow exploration companies to clear properties, do trenching work, move earth, and do preliminary excavation of the properties; and there is no ability for government to deal with that.
The attempts to fill that gap have had a long and difficult history, I must admit. The first attempts were launched in the late 1960s. At that time, there was a proposal put forward to replace the Yukon placer and quartz mining acts with a Yukon minerals bill. That initiative died under the weight of opposition and this gap has been left unattended to the current day.
There are land use regulations that operate in Yukon, but they are exempted specifically from applying to mineral properties. This condition was highlighted in the court cases on the Rafferty-Alameda Dams which highlighted the significance of the EARP guideline order. It was a regulation binding government to take specific action on environmental issues for matters under their jurisdiction. The problem was that it left no tools in our hands to actually implement the EARP guideline orders on properties. We were not in the business of assessing environmental issues associated with mineral development in the Yukon.
The former minister of the day, Mr. Siddon, directed that we change the legislation to close this gap. He directed first that we attend to an amendment of the then Northern Inland Waters Act, splitting it to create the Yukon Waters Act and the Northwest Territories Act, and then there was a change to the quartz and placer mining acts to ensure that the government had the tools to properly regulate environmental activities on mining claims.
He directed that he would have a made-in-Yukon solution and, as a result, he put in place a Yukon Minerals Advisory committee comprised of all the stakeholders who have a direct interest in the mining development and the environment of the Yukon. It consisted of the Yukon Conservation Society, the Council of the Yukon First Nations, the territorial government, the Klondike Placer Miners Association, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the territorial government, and, of course, DIAND.
The committee, with a variety of views, had a tough time coming to a consensus on how the property should be managed to take care of environmental concerns, but it did reach consensus and issued a report in 1992 with recommendations to the then minister. That report was circulated to the public for comment. Some comments were sent in which basically supported the report.
The minister then charged the committee to come back to him with details of the legislation. The next number of years were spent in committee writing the specific legislation. We shared legal drafts with the committee. They had opportunities for making comments on the specific wording in the legislation.
There was a wide variety of views. We were unable to bring closure on a couple of items. First, there was no consensus on whether securities should be taken and held. The mining industry, particularly placer mining, felt that a security was necessary in no instance. The Yukon Conservation Society felt that a security was necessary in all instances. We did not close that one.
Regarding levels of penalties, the Yukon Conservation Society were pushing for jail terms to be included for infractions, and the industry could not support that.
On the issue of the regulatory instruments that go to support the bill, there was a concern about the level of activities being exempted from the first order of government examination, which we call the threshold level.
The progress of getting this introduced and passed through Parliament was caught up by the Charlottetown accord and an election. Those two events took two years away from our ability to move these things forward.
I would emphasize that the proposed amendments to the act do not stand alone. They do not replace any current federal legislation. The Fisheries Act will apply to activities on mining properties. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act will apply to activities on mining properties. The Yukon Waters Act will apply. Territorial legislation dealing with wildlife protection and fuel and gasoline handling will also apply.
We have an interplay of legislation. Our legislation is driven specifically to fill that gap which I identified earlier, dealing with the physical work involving land and land movement. Any time water is involved, the Yukon Waters Act comes to bear. If there is an infraction dealing with fish and fish habitat, the Fisheries Act will come to bear. If there is an infraction dealing with chemicals and chemical treatment, then the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will come to bear. I will bring you back to that with respect to the issue of fines and penalties.
I would also point out the relationship of this proposed legislation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. You should be aware that all the approvals proposed under this legislation will be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That means, if a company puts forward a Class II permit seeking government authority to conduct work, that permit and that activity will be moved into the environmental screening stream. It will be screened under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Once the screening is done, it will be moved back into the regulatory stream, as outlined in this legislation. The permit and the appropriate terms and conditions would be attached.
The approach that we are proposing covers all activities on mining properties. There are no exemptions. The Class I permits are required to meet specific standards and conditions that are spelled out in the regulations and are subject to the kinds of remedies that are provided in the bill -- inspections, enforcement, stop-work orders, et cetera.
We know generally where the work is being done in terms of the Class I activities, because the properties are all recorded in the mining recorder's office. The companies will file assessment work against those properties; so we know where those properties are being worked.
The bill sets a requirement for a company wishing to do work on a mineral property to receive authority from government. It is outlined in four classes of permits and a licence when a company wishes to go into production. Under Class I, the company simply goes out and does what it believes it needs to do on its property. There are threshold levels beyond which they cannot exceed. If they are within those threshold levels, they may go out and conduct the work.
Permits in Classes II, III and IV all have different levels of threshold associated with them. The more complex and complicated the work, the greater the scrutiny and the longer the time government takes to do the review.
There are time guidelines set for government in which it must make its decisions. We have set those guidelines on the basis of our experience for consultation under the territorial land use regulations. We would intend to send out these applications to interest groups for their review, such as the Council of Yukon First Nations and the conservation societies. We believe we have sufficient time, within the legislation framework, to have those applications for permits go out, be reviewed by public interest groups and come back to government for assessment.
The bill provides the normal things that you would expect in legislation. It provides for the issuance and assignment and the termination of operation. It provides tools to the government for intervening, should it become necessary, and for holding and using security. It gives powers to inspectors to go and examine the properties and take necessary action, if things are not operating according to plan.
It also gives the companies the opportunity to appeal orders with which they do not agree. There are appeals to the bureaucratic level and to the ministerial level.
That then is a quick outline of the bill. We would be very happy to answer any questions.
Senator Bonnell: I do not know much about the Yukon. I do not know much about mining. I do understand that the young fellows were out there in 1898 digging for gold. They never heard tell of an act that would control everything they did, even going to the washroom. Why do we need all these rules and regulations in 1996 when they did not need them in 1898?
Mr. Beaubier: The pressures on resources have grown significantly. There are more people competing for those resources. There is a conflict between resource users. Big-game outfitters make their livelihood from bringing people in to hunt game around their camps in wilderness settings. They have many concerns about mining companies coming to set up a camp right next door and carrying on their activities.
There are water values. There are aesthetic values that just were not there a hundred years ago. We have had instances right in sight of the Alaska Highway, which is a heavily used tourist corridor, of extensive road work and trenching work on the side of a mountain. The visual aspects of that are quite upsetting to the tourist industry.
The intention of the bill is not to disallow people to go on working there, but to ensure that they leave the property in an acceptable condition, given the variety of different interests which have views on it.
Senator Bonnell: So this is just public pressure to ensure that everything is left the way the Lord put it there. If you dig a hole, you have to fill it in after.
Mr. Beaubier: There are also concerns about erosion and the impact of erosion.
Senator Bonnell: If it was not for mining, I understand the Yukon would not be very prosperous. The mines made it prosperous.
Mr. Beaubier: I agree with that.
Senator Bonnell: They are curtailing so many things with all these rules and regulations that I do not know how much mining can be done.
Mr. Beaubier: There is a provision in the bill which outlines the purpose. The purpose does underscore the importance of mining and the necessity of keeping a healthy and active mining industry going.
The committee that put this legislation together had representation from the Yukon Chamber of Mines and the Yukon Placer Mining Association. When we put the recommendations in legislative form to government, we sent a synopsis of the legislation to over 600 people in the Yukon. We held meetings in Whitehorse, Mayo and Dawson. Mayo and Dawson are the heart of the mining industry in the Yukon, at least the placer industry.
We heard loudly and clearly from the mining industry that they supported the bill.
Senator Bonnell: Those 600 people you heard from all agreed?
Mr. Beaubier: No, sir, they did not all agree, but the majority certainly did agree.
Senator Bonnell: If you can get that many people to agree to something, you are a smarter man than I am.
Mr. Beaubier: I would not claim that victory at all.
Senator Bonnell: The major groups basically agreed?
Mr. Beaubier: Yes, sir.
Senator Adams: How many people are operating mining companies in the Yukon right now?
Mr. Beaubier: The placer industry would have in the order of 500 operations. Those are small businesses, often family-based and they operate on the creeks and they operate in the months of free flowing water, May to October.
In terms of the hard rock industry, there is one major mine, the Anvil Range, and there are probably half a dozen mines in the developmental stage, producing gold and copper.
Senator Adams: If the bill is passed, are those all the mining companies operating right now. If the bill were passed, would it affect those companies currently mining?
Mr. Beaubier: If I understand you correctly, senator, we have put a transition period within the legislation that allows the companies that are currently operating to bring their plans and operations in line with this legislation. There is an opportunity and an obligation to ensure that what is currently being done swings in line.
I would not think that many of the mines are in full compliance with the legislation right now.
Senator Adams: Have you met with the people in the Yukon who have just settled their land claims?
Mr. Beaubier: Under the final umbrella agreement and the claims that have been settled, four First Nations have settled their claims. There is an obligation to consult with those groups. We have consulted and we are in the process of further consultation on the regulations.
They are also in the process of changing resource-based legislation to reflect the provisions of the claim. A bill is required for the development assessment process, which will provide for the environmental screening and assessment of projects. They may make further amendments to this bill as a result of that discussion. We are not sure where that is going yet.
Senator Adams: That amendment can get in even if the bill has been passed?
Mr. Beaubier: Yes. It was recognized that changes that came out of the land claims will have an impact on existing legislation.
Senator Adams: In the meantime, of those land claims which have been settled, is the mining company in partnership, or has anything been started?
Mr. Beaubier: Partnerships are being developed with land claim groups. Under the provisions of the claims, lands were granted to First Nations where both surface and the sub-surface were granted in title. We would expect to see mineral development proceeding on those lands under the terms and conditions that aboriginal people feel appropriate.
Senator Pearson: What issues were raised when this bill went through the House of Commons?
Mr. Beaubier: The committee set up a rather innovative process of hooking up by satellite to the interested parties in the Yukon. They had two days of hearings in which they invited all the parties who had a view on the bill to come forward. There were no new issues raised. There were the same levels of concern as I raised earlier. No one agreed on the levels of fines and penalties. No one agreed on the holding and taking of securities. Some people felt that the class I activities were too permissive.
Those were issues that we talked about in the committee. Those were issues that came up in the public hearings, where we did not get closure with 600 people, and they were repeated during the committee hearings. The committee felt that the bill represented the best broad-based agreement that could be achieved, given the polarity of views on those issues.
The Deputy Chair: With respect to the first group of stakeholders that was formed to look into this in 1990 or 1992, I understand that certain members dropped out or withdrew. Can you explain why and when that occurred?
Mr. Beaubier: That did not actually occur right until the very end, when the recommendation in legislative form went to the minister.
The Yukon Conservation Society felt, because we were not able to close on the issue of securities, penalties and particularly thresholds, that they could no longer support the recommendation. The reason for this was that the bill had taken so long to get into Parliament and be passed.
When we originally sat down in 1992, we were looking at having this done within a couple of years. Because of the events I spoke about earlier, we were simply unable to get that work finished and through Parliament.
They felt that while they were quite prepared previously to make some compromises to get quick passage and get environmental controls on the mining property, given the length of time it eventually took and given their fundamental objections on those issues, they were not prepared to say that they would support the bill. However, that did not happen until the bill was actually written and forwarded to government.
The Deputy Chair: How large is that conservation society?
Mr. Beaubier: It does not have a huge membership, but it has significant credibility in the Yukon. It has a broad-based membership in a number of the Yukon communities. It is not just a Whitehorse-based organization. I do not know how large it is in actual membership.
The Deputy Chair: It seems to me that the weakness in the bill, despite some good things in it, is the fact that the threshold is too low, particularly on Class I activity, where there are compliance expectations for companies, but there is no public notification. Filing things is not a very public way of getting people to understand what is happening. If notification or alerts are not given, how is this going to be monitored to ensure that it does not become a problem?
Mr. Beaubier: First of all, the thresholds are in the regulations as opposed to the bill itself. We provide for Class I and then we set the thresholds in the regulations. It really is not a feature of the bill.
In terms of the monitoring, the claims sheets are public records. Anyone can go in and find out who holds what property. We specifically set the thresholds in a way that would encourage a certain level of activity that we felt would be less harmful to the environment.
It does provide for people to go in and do drilling work or some trenching work. However, when you take a look at some of the threshold levels, there is not a lot of work that can be done. The amount of fuel under the first threshold is limited to 5,000 litres. You cannot do much with 5,000 litres. Camp days are limited, so you cannot have large camps. Therefore, the actual amount of work you can do is very limited. We specifically put that in place so it would encourage helicopter-borne activities and avoid road work and heavy machinery going in by road.
In terms of monitoring, as I mentioned, we will be monitoring on the basis of assessment work filed and claims filed. Our records will be open to the public. I acknowledge your point, in that we would not specifically have a registry that would deal with those particular activities. People would have to work a bit to find them.
The Deputy Chair: So we need due diligence from the bureaucracy for the administration of that.
Mr. Beaubier: That is correct.
The Deputy Chair: And we need a vigilant conservation society.
Mr. Beaubier: Which we have, I would say, in both instances, of course.
The Deputy Chair: Another problem that has been mentioned regarding the bill is the fact that the securities or the deposits for some of the larger developments are not sufficient or are not known because they may be covered by regulation. It is usually not the good mining companies that we have to worry about; it is the errant ones. If we cannot get the money up front, how will we get them to pay up at the end for their indiscretions?
Mr. Beaubier: There are provisions in the bill for security. It gives some guidance with respect to when security should be taken. That deals with significant environmental risk and with the past performance of the company. Bad actors will always have to give security. The provisions allow the government to take whatever security is necessary to deal with the property, including full, 100 per cent, up-front security, if it is deemed necessary.
The Deputy Chair: I understand that in the Yukon there is a policy of free entry. How does that complement conservation in this bill, or are they directly opposed?
Mr. Beaubier: Many would view them as directly opposed, but I would comment that the free-entry system is a national system. It applies in all the provinces as well. What it really means is that people have the right to go in, stake a claim and get certain privileges associated with that claim. If the ground is open, if there are no restrictions placed on that ground by government, and if you are in accordance with the rules for staking a claim, then you have a right of opportunity on that property.
Right now there is a debate within Canada, and that includes the North, as to whether that is an appropriate vehicle for allocating rights or not, where the individual chooses. To make changes would require a fundamental overhaul of the way the industry is currently operating within Canada, and, indeed, in most instances internationally. The whole movement of prospecting, and the development of properties to a certain stage through prospecting, would be at significant risk, if there were large-scale changes to the free-entry system. It would mean that some of the junior companies, who pick up the properties from the prospectors and develop them to a certain further stage and then hand them over to the majors, would also have some difficulty with a changed system. While it has some problems associated with it, because you never know where a conflict between the staking of a mining claim and a resource is going to occur until an individual stakes the property, the organization of the industry is really the determining factor as to whether those changes are made and how they are made.
Government does have other tools to allow it to deal with this issue. Land-use planning is one. There is a requirement for land-use planning under the land claims agreements and land-use planning will be done. Government can withdraw lands from staking under the Territorial Lands Act, as it will be able to under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act as well. It can prohibit areas from being staked, so if there are resource values in play, then those areas can be withdrawn from staking and the free-entry system no longer applies.
For example, the whole area of north Yukon, north of the Porcupine River right to the Arctic coast, has been withdrawn from staking because it is deemed to be sensitive. There have recently been two parks created in that area to protect the Porcupine caribou herd. Because of the use of that area by other wildlife, that whole region -- a very large region, larger than PEI -- has been withdrawn.
Those tools are available for managing the free-entry system.
The Deputy Chair: I think the Yukon was almost the last area to have this type of legislation.
Mr. Beaubier: It is the last.
The Deputy Chair: How does this piece of legislation compare to that in the Northwest Territories or B.C. or Alberta?
Mr. Beaubier: It is quite similar, senator. In the Northwest Territories, the Territorial Lands Act applies, as do the territorial land use regulations, on all mineral properties, whereas I mentioned earlier that that was not the case in the Yukon. It operates in essentially the same way. There are two classes of permits under the territorial land use regulations in the Northwest Territories, whereas we have four. They are both subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The levels of fines or penalties are similar. Where they differ is on the thresholds. We cover all activities under the proposed changes here, and the question is whether that is appropriate or not and whether the system of notification is appropriate or not, whereas in the territorial lands regulations, certain levels are exempted from regulation by government.
In the provinces, there is quite a variety of approaches. Some provinces deal with the management of these types of activities strictly under environmental legislation, some deal with it strictly under mining legislation; but the processes are similar. In B.C, there is a requirement for all activities to be reviewed and approved by government, so they do not have that Class I level. Other areas do have thresholds that they would only apply when a certain level of activity occurrs. It is comparable.
Senator Bonnell: Can you tell me, since the parliamentarians in the other place, the civil service under the government, and everyone else has procrastinated over this bill since 1992, why we should bother passing it at all now? What is the good of it?
Mr. Beaubier: We are into some fairly serious resource conflicts in the Yukon, where there are values at play that represent the thinking of aboriginal people, conservationists and other resource users, and up to now we have had no opportunity to deal with them. There is a huge frustration among people who hunt and trap for a living, people who outfit and take tours down wilderness rivers, and people who have residences adjacent to mining properties, because there is simply no remedy to deal with the kinds of concerns that have arisen.
The Yukon mining industry recognizes that they must live within the Yukon community and that they must make their peace with their neighbours and the people who have different views. They are quite prepared to do so. They believe this bill is the appropriate vehicle for that.
The Yukon Chamber of Mines actually passed a motion saying they wished to move into environmental controls and regulations on their properties, simply to deal with those conflicts and irritations that occur without them. They would have written it slightly differently if they had held the pen themselves, but they recognized that some compromises were necessary.
Senator Bonnell: You are telling us that, by passing this bill, we will make it better for people in the hunting industry, the wildlife industry, the tourist industry and the mining industry. That is to say, they will all know the rules by which they are to play.
Mr. Beaubier: Exactly.
Senator Bonnell: Consequently, we should pass the bill. If there are any mistakes in it, we will amend it next year.
Mr. Beaubier: We hope there will be no mistakes, but that is a possibility.
Senator Bonnell: I have yet to see anyone do anything without making one or two mistakes. That is why, every year, we have more and more amendments to bills. This would be a new kind of bill if no amendments were required.
I move that the bill be reported with no amendments.
The Deputy Chair: First, I wish to thank our witnesses. Mr. Beaubier, you have certainly made the bill reasonable and understandable. That is to your credit and perhaps due to the briefings you received from your two colleagues.
Conservation is everyone's issue in a community. When major issues are embedded in regulation, it is difficult. There must be ongoing information about the regulations and the penalties if this legislation is to receive the support of the community, which it should. I hope that is noted.
Honourable senators, Senator Bonnell has moved that we dispense a clause-by-clause study of the bill. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Pearson: I move that we report the bill without amendment.
The Deputy Chair: We have a motion to report Bill C-6 back to the Senate without amendment. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
For the information of members of the committee, I am told that our future business will be much more intricate than has been the case in the past six or eight months, because we will be dealing with the following bills: Bill C-39, the York Factory First Nation Flooded Land Act; Bill C-40, the Nelson House First Nation Flooded Land Act; Bill C-50, the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord Implementation Act; and Bill C-51, the Nunavut Waters Act.
As well, I have been reminded that the Royal Commission will report in November. This committee should consider what our action will be. Do we want the commissioners to come here? Will we be studying parts of the report? How will we do that? I intend to raise that matter with our chairman and perhaps we can deal with it.
Senator Marchand also met with the steering committee informally to indicate that he will pursue our request to have the minister appear before us. When we regrouped, we had indicated that we wanted to start with the minister. Those meetings were cancelled several times in June. I indicated, and I think the committee agreed, that the minister should be called to give us an overview of the state of play with the aboriginal community.
I thought Senator Marchand would be here. I have a number of issues that are still outstanding. With respect to the aboriginal veterans report, we received some individual claims that we thought had merit. We turned them over to the department and stipulated in our report that we would give the department officials one year to investigate them and then they should report back. We must have a session where the officials from the department return to report on that, and we need to look into the issues regarding aboriginal veterans. There has been some movement on some of our recommendations; there has not been movement on others.
Senator Pearson: Those of us who watched television last night saw the unveiling of the memorial and also heard about the scholarship.
The Deputy Chair: The scholarship was announced a while ago. This is a new initiative. We should take stock of that and also the individual claims. When the act for the land claims commission in B.C. was put in place, we had suggested that we would invite the commissioner back to bring us up to date.
There was one other outstanding issue concerning Yukon land claims. We requested an update regarding the differences of opinion. I cannot recall how many bands were involved, but at the end there was some altercation between several of them who did not feel that their rights had been protected individually through the process. They agreed to go back and resolve it. We indicated that we did not have a role to play, because it involved internal matters, but we would review it to see if there was anything that we could do.
Those three issues are still outstanding; so we have a full plate. I hope we can encourage our other members to attend, and that Senator Marchand will be back shortly and will be well enough to carry on.
The committee adjourned.