Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 27, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-38, to amend the National Parks Act (creation of Tuktut Nogait National Park), met this day at 9:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are reconvening our study of Bill C-38, to amend the National Parks Act by creating Tuktut Nogait National Park in the Western Arctic.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the removal of some of the lands in the national park as a result of information received respecting the potential of mining in a small portion within the boundaries of the park. It is our intention to find out more about this matter by hearing from representatives from Falconbridge Limited who will appear this morning. Later we will hear about the movement of the Bluenose caribou, and whether or not their calving grounds are in this area.
I would ask Mr. Dennis Prince to proceed.
Mr. Dennis Prince, Director of Exploration Projects, Falconbridge Limited: Honourable senators, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to you. I have been a geologist with Falconbridge Limited for 30 years. I look after all the grassroots projects worldwide.
Last Tuesday Mr. McNamee and Ms Cournoyea mentioned the work accomplished by the Whitehorse mining initiative. I participated on the land access committee of the Whitehorse mining initiative with other members of the mining industry, environmental groups, First Nation peoples and labour, as well as federal, provincial, and territorial governments.
I am also the vice-president of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. God willing, I will be president of the PDAC in the year 2000. Land access issues are important matters for the PDAC. Our members have consistently rated that as a top priority issue for the association to address.
We are appearing in front of this committee at the request of the Inuvialuit to provide mineral exploration expertise to your deliberations and to answer any technical questions you may have.
Falconbridge signed an agreement with Darnley Bay Resources Limited one month ago to acquire an option to earn a participating interest in the Darnley Bay exploration project.
We met with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation two weeks ago to introduce ourselves. We learned that IRC was making a submission to this committee to review the park agreement and request that the western boundary of the Tuktut Nogait National Park exclude an area of high mineral potential before the park boundaries are set.
We were asked by Ms Nellie Cournoyea to write a letter to this committee in support of this submission and to attend the hearing last Tuesday in order to answer technical questions about the mineral potential of the area.
I will now turn to Mr. James Robertson.
Mr. James Robertson, Exploration Manager, Western North America, Falconbridge Limited: Honourable senators, I am a geologist with Falconbridge. I also chair the mineral exploration liaison committee in Manitoba.
We are working closely with the World Wildlife Fund and the Manitoba government to choose areas for new provincial parks as part of the World Wildlife Fund's endangered species campaign. We are trying to do this by consensus, striving for win-win situations, in order to select areas of unique landscapes, while at the same time avoiding areas with high mineral potential. We have made very good progress so far.
I am also on a committee to study the feasibility of the Lake Superior marine conservation area, working with Parks Canada and the World Wildlife Fund. They approached Falconbridge and asked us to support the study; we agreed. Parks Canada asked me to sit on the committee, which I agreed to do.
Falconbridge has been involved in many initiatives to help protect wildlife. Our Winnipeg office sponsored the setting up of the Manitoba conservation data centre. We have also been a strong supporter of the project to reintroduce peregrine falcons to Manitoba and Ontario.
There are three issues to which we would like to provide information today: first, who Falconbridge is and why we decided to invest in the exploration project on the Darnley Bay anomaly; second, why the results of the airborne magnetic survey flown last year have significantly increased the mineral or the Darnley Bay anomaly; and, third, why it is important that the southeast portion of the anomaly is excluded from the park.
Falconbridge is the second largest nickel producer in the western world. We are the third largest cobalt producer and one of the top 10 copper producers. The company was founded in 1928. Falconbridge explores or develops mines, processes and markets metals worldwide.
We operate five nickel mines in Sudbury, the Kidd Creek copper-zinc mine in Timmins, the new Raglan nickel mine in northern Quebec, a nickel refinery in Norway, nickel laterite operations in the Dominican Republic, and the huge Collahuasi copper mines in northern Chile.
Although we are currently at a low point in the metals market cycle, Falconbridge believes the long-term outlook for nickel is very good. New nickel deposits will need to be discovered on an ongoing basis to meet the world's future demands. It takes many years to explore, discover and develop new mines. Therefore, Falconbridge continues to explore worldwide in areas with the best nickel potential.
Nickel deposits also commonly contain significant copper, cobalt and platinum group metals. Besides exploring for these deposits close to our current operations in Sudbury and Raglan, we also have nickel exploration projects in Manitoba, Quebec, Labrador, Greenland, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and we are now opening an exploration office in Australia.
We have an advanced nickel laterite project in Cote d'Ivoire in West Africa, and in New Caledonia we have just signed an agreement with the Kanak people -- the aboriginal people of the north part of the island of New Caledonia -- to build a new ferronickel plant to jointly process the nickel deposits with them.
Though we are very active internationally, we still believe in the high mineral potential of Canada. We are spending 70 per cent of our exploration budget in Canada. Canada used to be the largest producer of nickel in the world, but we have lost our dominance over the years. Falconbridge is looking for new opportunities here in this country. At this time, the only nickel target in the Northwest Territories that Falconbridge has chosen to pursue is the Darnley Bay anomaly.
For several years Falconbridge has closely followed the progress of exploration work by Darnley Bay Resources Limited on the Darnley Bay anomaly. It is the strongest, isolated gravity anomaly in North America, and it has several strong magnetic anomalies associated with it. Its geophysical signature is similar to anomalies over some of the world's most important mineral belts, such as the Sudbury basin. In fact, the Darnley Bay gravity anomaly is four times stronger than the Sudbury basin anomaly. The anomaly is most likely a very large intrusion of mafic rock that came up from the earth's mantle as a magma and intruded the earth's crust. Large intrusions like this are sometimes rich in metals such as nickel, copper, cobalt, and platinum group metals.
Falconbridge previously looked at the data on the anomaly. We read the GSC's 1994 report and agreed with its conclusions. However, the reason we chose not to pursue it in the past was that we had believed the targets were probably several kilometres deep -- and I think others felt the same as well -- and therefore not feasible to explore a mine. What changed our mind?
This past summer we reviewed the project again with the new data and were very encouraged by the results. We decided then to negotiate with Darnley Bay Resources to earn an interest in the project. We signed an agreement with them on September 29. That agreement gives us an option to earn a participating interest in the project.
The following are the four new factors that led Falconbridge to pursue this project.
The first was target accessibility. Last October 1997, the airborne high resolution magnetic survey was flown over the anomaly. This was a state-of-the-art survey. It significantly advanced the project in two ways. First, it identified a number of strong magnetic anomalies that are coincident with the gravity anomaly, and this gives you some good exploration targets to follow up. It also appears that the magnetic anomalies represent targets that are much shallower than previously thought. Although previous work indicated that the targets were probably several kilometres deep and therefore uneconomic to mine or even to explore, the new results clearly show that some of the targets appear to be within the range of 400 metres to 1,000 metres. Just for reference, deposits in Sudbury are now being mined down to more than 2,000 metres. The Darnley Bay anomaly is clearly a fairly shallow depth.
The second factor relates to new models on the genesis of nickel deposits. New information has been learned about the Norilsk-Talnahk nickel deposit in Russia. It is the largest and richest nickel-platinum deposit in the world. We have also learned a lot from the exciting work on the Voisey Bay nickel deposit in Labrador, which is different again from other deposits. These models show that nickel deposits are not just restricted to the place of magma intrusions, but they can be associated with subsidiary magma chambers and feeders which may be located above or below the intrusion, or even outside the intrusion. Knowing this, at this stage, one cannot predict the best area in the Darnley Bay anomaly. Considerably more work must be done.
The third factor was our experience in mining nickel in the Arctic. In December 1997, Falconbridge started mining operations on the Raglan nickel deposit in the sub-Arctic of Ungava in northern Quebec and the Hudson Strait. This operation produces 20,000 tonnes of nickel metal per year, and we plan to expand this in the future. This operation demonstrates that a number of new technical advances have improved the economic viability of mining nickel deposits in the Canadian Arctic.
The input and guidance of the local Inuit people has also made this project possible. Our commitment from the start has been to consult with local communities and make their concerns integral to our processes. Falconbridge is one of the first mining companies to reach an impact in the benefits agreement with the Inuit. In our Raglan agreement with Makivik, the local Inuit share a part of the profits from the mine. They have priority rights to provide contract services for the operation. They are provided with job training and they are given preference for jobs. Currently, there are 350 people employed at the mine. Seventy-five of those people are Inuit from the local community. There has been very good cooperation between us.
The fourth factor was some of the recent advances in exploration technology. There is currently a new breakthrough in advanced technology in exploration geophysics, such as 3-D and deconvolution -- please do not ask me to explain this -- to estimate the depths of magnetic targets. Borehole electromagnetics detect ore bodies from the drill holes. This involves lowering a geophysical probe down the drill hole. As well, there have been major advances in computer processing of geophysical data, which greatly improves the interpretation of the underlining geology in three dimensions. We believe this will help us detect which targets at Darnley Bay are the best and allow us to carry out exploration with lower impact on the environment.
We also wish to note that a number of mineral assessments have been done on the Darnley Bay area as documented in the 1994 GSC report. With each assessment, as knowledge became available, the mineral potential ranking increased. The new airborne results increased the potential even further, yet there are still no drill holes into the anomaly.
Plans are to carry out ground geophysics and drill several holes next year. This will give us a much better idea of the mineral potential.
This project is at a very early stage and will require significantly more advanced work over the next few years. This is a project that we believe has the potential of hosting large deposits of nickel, copper, cobalt and platinum group metals. It is worth pointing out that the 1994 GSC report was based on 20-year-old data. It was based on an aeromagnetic survey flown in 1973 at 2,000 feet on wide space lines.
Of course, the new data was flown at a lower altitude, is closer spaced, has much higher resolution, and is far more advanced. Also, GSC could not adequately assess the diamond potential. The new survey shows several bull's eye targets that could very well be kimberlite types that may even host diamonds. That has not yet been looked at.
Mr. Prince: I should like to explain to you why the new airborne magnetic results have significantly increased mineral potential. Falconbridge is coming to this project only recently for one primary reason, and that is that the new airborne magnetic results are so significant that it has changed our mind on whether to pursue it. We do not take these decisions lightly because exploration is very expensive. We must choose our exploration targets very carefully.
At this time, the Darnley Bay anomaly is the only exploration target that we are working on in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We believe that it will take several millions of dollars to explore this anomaly over several years just to determine whether there is an economic deposit. To put that into a time scale, we started exploring our Raglan deposit, which came into production in December 1997, 30 years ago. That is the time horizon in exploration.
One of the key issues discussed here last Tuesday was whether the new airborne magnetic results are significantly new. I can say that they were critical to Falconbridge. They were certainly significant enough for us to change our opinion, to decide to pursue exploration on that project and approach Darnley Bay Resources to participate in the project.
The other thing I wish to address is why it is important that the southeast portion of the anomaly be excluded from the park. Although the major mineral belts around the world are commonly associated with strong gravity and magnetic anomalies like Darnley Bay, nickel deposits only occur within very small areas within those large anomalies. If an economic deposit is discovered at Darnley Bay, it would likely occur within a very small fraction of the anomaly. It may even be possible to find a number of deposits, but still the vast majority of the anomaly would not be mineralized. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Although it makes sense to test the strongest and shallowest targets first, it is not possible at this stage to determine which area is actually mineralized. It is possible that the magnetic targets in the park have associated ore deposits and the rest of the magnetic targets are barren. It could equally be the other way around. Therefore, it is important that exploration be carried out over all of the anomaly. After spending many millions of dollars to explore the target, it would certainly be a shame to find out later that the best area is actually in the park.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate these points to you. Falconbridge decided to pursue the Darnley Bay project because we believe it does have potential for high grade deposits of nickel, copper, cobalt, and platinum. The results of the airborne magnetic survey flown last year significantly increased the mineral potential in the Darnley Bay anomaly in two ways. First, it identified several good exploration targets and, second, and most important, some of the magnetic anomalies are much shallower than previously thought. This was critical to our decision.
Since deposits may occur at any of the exploration target areas, and possibly at one of the target areas, it is important that all of the anomaly be available for exploration.
Therefore, Falconbridge respectfully requests that you give serious consideration to the request of the Inuvialuit to adjust the western boundary of the proposed park to exclude the area of high mineral potential over the southeast portion of the Darnley Bay anomaly. This should be done before the park is established.
Falconbridge strongly believes in both preserving Canada's unique landscapes and wildlife as well as areas of mineral wealth for Canada's economic well-being. We believe that we do not have to choose one or the other. With careful consideration, we can have both. To do so requires the various stakeholders to meet around the table and listen to each other with respect and understanding. We believe that better results are gained not by confrontation but by reaching consensus around the table.
If you decide to review the boundary of the Tuktut Nogait National Park, we would be pleased to participate. We extend a hand to Kevin McNamee of the Canadian Nature Federation and to Parks Canada to work together with the Inuvialuit to reach a solution to benefit all Canadians.
We believe that a win-win solution can be found in the case of Tuktut Nogait Park. Slightly adjusting the park boundary would preserve a very large national park to protect the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou and preserve an area of high mineral potential which has the possibility of providing important economic well-being for the Inuvialuit people and Canada. We do care about wildlife and we believe that mining operations can be carried out without harm to the integrity of wildlife habitat. We can do both.
Senator Hays: We do not want to get into a technical explanation of the difference between the surveys carried out in 1973 and in 1997, those being the only surveys done. However, perhaps you could elaborate a bit on that and also comment on what we heard from the Secretary of State for Parks, who told this committee that, when permission was given to survey this area, it was done so on the express condition that it was for purposes other than changing the boundary of the park.
Mr. Robertson: I brought with me a copy of a report by Paterson, Grant & Watson Limited on the Darnley Bay project. This is the result of the survey done last October. They compared the result with the survey done in 1973 by the Geological Survey of Canada. Surveys of GSC are quite good for interpreting the overall geology of an area, but not very good for exploration purposes. Their line spacing is done at two kilometres, which is very wide. The 1997 survey was done at 800 metres. The GSC survey was done at an altitude of 2,000 feet while the survey of last year was done at an altitude of 490 feet. There have been many advances in the last 25 years in all areas of geophysics, but in particular in airborne magnetics.
To put it simply, the vertical gradient looks not only at the straight magnetic signature of the ground but at two levels, and it sees the difference between them. They also use GPS and give much better precision of the anomalies. The details of the data are significantly different. The new data is much more high resolution and much more useful for exploration purposes.
We do not look only at the magnetic data. We also look at the gravity data, and there is more detailed gravity work yet to be done. However, the most useful data at this point is the airborne aeromagnetic survey done last October.
Senator Hays: I gather that permission to do this exploratory work was given on the understanding that it would not be for purposes of changing the boundaries of the park.
Mr. Prince: We were not involved at that time. That was arranged by Darnley Bay Resources, the small company with which we have reached an agreement, and therefore, we cannot comment on that. Perhaps it could be addressed to them.
Any information you get from such a survey certainly adds to your general understanding of how you would focus exploration in the future. You could liken it to satellite surveys that are done these days. You would use that same kind of information.
Senator Hays: The change here is in the position that the other parties who were involved in the negotiations, stakeholders if you will, are basically motivated by you. I am referring to Darnley Bay and there are no representatives here. Since I cannot ask them, I am not sure what they would say.
Mr. Robertson: There is a representative from Darnley Bay Resources here.
Senator Hays: The change in position on park boundaries is inspired by your presence in the play; is that right?
Mr. Prince: No. We are sort of johnny-come-latelies to this. Although we were monitoring the project for a long time, we were a bit surprised by what had been happening as far as the advancement of the park was concerned. About a month ago, the Inuvialuit requested that we come here to make a technical presentation in support of their request.
It would be an ideal situation if we had the whole anomaly to explore. However, if the people of Canada decide to keep a portion of it in the park, that will not stop us from proceeding with the rest of the exploration program.
Senator Hays: We are only discussing a small area that is within the proposed park boundaries. What does your survey tell you about the rest of the area; is it bad, good, as good, or better?
Mr. Robertson: At this time, it is difficult to say that one of those anomalies is any better than another. Common sense tells us to go after the shallowest and strongest targets first. The first targets that would be drilled would likely be close to the centre of this anomaly.
As you do exploration and test each target, you do not really know which is the best one. It is hard at this time to say which is the best.
Senator Hays: Do your comments about the more valuable information from the 1997 survey apply to the whole area, not just the area in the park?
Mr. Robertson: That is right, it is the whole anomaly.
Senator Hays: I am happy to hear that your involvement is not conditional upon the park boundary changing. As you know, there are other considerations to determine where the park boundary is.
The Chairman: I have before me a letter dated February 1, 1995, referred to by the Secretary of State for Parks, from Darnley Bay Resources Limited. I am sure your aware of this letter.
In the letter, the president writes about the willingness of his company to give up its mineral prospecting permits in the area that is contemplated within the park. He speaks strongly about his environmental concerns and the like. I would like you to respond to the position of Darnley Bay and its willingness to give up its permits for areas within the park.
Mr. Prince: I feel uncomfortable in taking Darnley Bay's position on this. We were not involved and we did not write that letter. I understand from Darnley Bay that there was an understanding between them and the Inuvialuit that section 22 of the agreement allowed for co-management of the park. They felt that it was not a big issue to surrender those licences; that the park would be adjusted as time went on.
That is my understanding of what they said. Other than that, I cannot comment on their actual understanding.
Mr. Robertson: I might add that that letter was written before the airborne survey was done.
Senator Hays: You were aware of the form of the agreement at all relevant times. Thus, you are not surprised by any of this with respect to trying to change the agreement. Section 22 is another issue which I do not wish to get into with you because it involves the stakeholders and Parks Canada. Were you aware of the boundaries at all times?
Mr. Prince: Not really. We are a very small group. We cannot focus on everything that goes on. We only got into the details of it when we started to negotiate the final agreement with Darnley Bay Resources.
Senator Hays: I take it, then, that they did not share the letter with you.
Mr. Prince: We only saw it once we had been asked to participate in these hearings.
Senator Hays: In your relationship with Darnley Bay Resources Limited, I am sure there is some information that they do not share with you, particularly as it may relate to whether the site will become a park or not. No doubt you run into this from time to time.
Mr. Prince: The old survey indicates that it is too deep. Therefore, we would not pay too much attention to this issue. However, with the new data, you become more sensitized and you understand it somewhat better.
Senator Hays: To be duly diligent, you should carefully consider details like that in the future.
Mr. Prince: Once we signed the agreement with Darnley Bay, we did appreciate it at that level.
The Chairman: You have now given up the permits. Therefore, you have no rights to mine in that area because you have no permits; is that right?
Mr. Prince: Darnley Bay has no permits.
The Chairman: Nor do you.
Mr. Prince: We do not have any permits.
The Chairman: In that particular area there are no permits outstanding, but outside the park boundaries, there are permits; is that right?
Mr. Prince: That is right.
The Chairman: No matter how our committee decides this matter, you would still have to go to the federal government to obtain the permits to be in that area; is that right?
Mr. Prince: That is true.
The Chairman: A department of government could refuse to issue those permits.
Mr. Prince: Yes, which begs the question: What is the relationship between the federal government and the Inuvialuit lands? It is a question as to who has control over it.
The Chairman: Does the federal government not issue the permits?
Mr. Prince: Right now the federal government issues the permits, but with the agreement of the Inuvialuit.
The Chairman: Even if we change the boundaries, as you and Ms Cournoyea are requesting, that would not be the end of it for you. You must still obtain the permits.
Mr. Prince: That is true. They contain all kinds of conditions as to how we must carry out our exploration work. Those conditions are imposed by both the Inuvialuit and the federal government.
Senator Cochrane: The Secretary of State for Parks told the committee last week that 80 per cent of the mineral deposits in the region are outside of this park boundary; is that right?
Mr. Prince: We do not know if there are any mineral deposits there. All we know is that 80 per cent of the anomaly is outside the park.
Senator Cochrane: If these mineral rights for the disputed area of the park were turned over to the Inuvialuit, who agreed in 1996 to include the land in the park, and if this park agreement is renegotiated to exclude this area, would the mining rights revert to you or to the Inuvialuit?
Mr. Prince: I think to the Inuvialuit, but that is not my area of expertise.
Mr. Robertson: The Inuvialuit have requested that the permits go to them.
Senator Cochrane: They want this park area excluded from the original agreement that was agreed to by Parks Canada.
Mr. Robertson: This is what we are talking about, the gravity anomaly. Highlighted in green are some of the best magnetic targets that were defined by the 1997 airborne survey. This is the part that is within the park. We are asking for that part to be excluded. There were permits in that area that were issued to Darnley Bay, and, at the request of the Inuvialuit, they were withdrawn or dropped. The Inuvialuit have requested that, if this area is excluded from the park, those permits be given to the Inuvialuit. Hopefully, they could become part of our agreement and would be available for exploration by Darnley Bay. This could very well be a three-way joint venture between Darnley Bay, Falconbridge and the Inuvialuit.
Senator Cochrane: The survey indicated that the mineral rights -- and you specifically said that this morning -- were closer to the surface. Was that the only factor in your decision to try to exclude this area from the park now, or are there other considerations, such as new technologies that have become available?
Mr. Prince: That is exactly right. There are new techniques that we can use to try to explore, techniques we would not have thought about in the past. We would not have had the ability to do that. The information from those surveys suggests that they are closer to the surface and that there are other features that suggest some areas might be better than others. For example, you can start to look at those and see patterns which might be fault structures, which might be deep controls for ore bodies. Those kinds of patterns start to come out when you get better information like that. It can be compared to making hand shadows on the wall with a flashlight versus today's motion pictures. It is that kind of resolution difference that helps you see better.
Senator Cochrane: If you receive approval for this project, how many people do you expect to employ?
Mr. Prince: That escalates over time with exploration. In the beginning, an exploration program can employ very few people. It usually starts off with a geologist walking across the land, mapping the rocks. As the program advances, you focus on less ground. You look at one area more closely, but more people get involved. You start to do geophysical surveys, which involve people taking geophysical instruments and walking over the ground.
Senator Cochrane: I am more concerned about the local people.
Mr. Prince: We are trying to incorporate many of them in it. It is to our economic advantage to do so, because transportation costs to fly people from the south are horrendous.
Mr. Robertson: I mentioned that we have 350 people working in our Raglan operation. We are doing our best to train and hire as many local Inuit people as possible. So far, we have 75 working at the mine, and we hope to increase that. Falconbridge's policy around the world is to hire as many local people as possible. A good example is in the Dominican Republic. When the project was first developed, we started out with a lot of Canadians. We used our geologists and our engineers. However, over the years, we trained the local Dominicans. Now I believe, with the exception of one Canadian, all are Domincans. The president of that local operation is Domincan. That is what we strive to do.
Senator Cochrane: If you do not receive approval to have this parcel of land included, would you spend your resources creating jobs in another location? Do you have another location in Canada ready to go?
Mr. Robertson: We would still work on this project. There is still a lot of land available there to work on. However, we always have more projects we are interested in than we have money to explore them. Budgets are always a concern. We have projects in Manitoba, Labrador, Quebec, Greenland, and a number of other places in the world.
Senator Cochrane: Is this one a priority for you?
Mr. Robertson: In the Northwest Territories, this is our number one target at this time.
Senator Cochrane: Why?
Mr. Robertson: Because of the strong gravity anomaly. It seems to be a real bull's eye that is probably a major mafic intrusion that may have metals with it. We think it is one of the best targets right now in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Prince: You can probably count on one hand anomalies such as this one that occur around the world. When you see one like this, you become very encouraged to take the next steps.
Senator Cochrane: Is it similar to the one found at Voisey Bay?
Mr. Prince: Yes. This one is much better in terms of its geophysical exploration. If you look at the one at Voisey Bay, you can see a big blob sitting there, but the actual deposit is not on the blob. It is off to the side. Twenty years ago, you would have looked in the middle of it, not off to the side, so you would have missed Voisey Bay.
Senator Adams: Mr. Robertson, you mentioned that you worked on a committee with Parks Canada. Were you involved with the work leading up to the proposal for Tuktut Nogait National Park? Were you providing them with the information on future mining possibilities, or is this something different?
Mr. Robertson: Was this a reference to my work with Parks Canada in the past in other areas?
Senator Adams: Were you not involved at the beginning of the proposal for the park area?
Mr. Robertson: No.
Senator Adams: It seems to me that at the beginning of the park proposal, some of the local organizations did not have much indication as to the size of the park, and so on. I do not know whether Parks Canada explained it all to the local people. The caribou will not be there forever, while that rock containing the nickel can be there forever, if you do not mine the area.
To what extent have you studied the movements of the herd? I have hunted in that area, and I know that the caribou herds, which have been around for thousands of years, have moved as a result of the activity. My concern is, if we do not make the right decision with respect to the park, we may hurt the local people. In the future, the jobs from the mine will be gone, and then the caribou may not be there in 15 or 20 years. That is my concern. Maybe you are more familiar with the situation. You have had geologists working there. I am worried that the caribou will move elsewhere.
Mr. Prince: You are expressing a problem that is universal in both the biological and the geological fields. The information about the caribou and mineral deposits gets better over time, but we are never quite certain what will happen. Our goal should be to try to get as much information as possible so that we can keep our options open. We do not wish to hurt the caribou, therefore, we try to be as flexible as possible in doing our work. We try our best to do things that help us achieve our goals.
Senator Adams: How large is the area you want to mine?
Mr. Prince: Typically, a mine area is the size of a supermarket parking lot.
Mr. Robertson: If a deposit were found, it would be an underground operation, and it would be a fairly small underground area.
Senator Adams: Are you saying the mining will take place underground as opposed to on the surface?
Mr. Robertson: Yes.
Senator Adams: I do not know about the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, but the Nunavut agreement permits the municipality to control an area of up to 25 kilometres within the community for any future plans, mining for example. If the plans for the park were to go ahead, only a small number of people would travel through it. Have you met with the local people, the Paulatuk, who are concerned about the area and about the future of mining there?
Mr. Prince: We have not met with them yet but we intend to do that as soon as we are able to do so. We went up to Inuvik last week and we want to go to Paulatuk as soon as we can.
Senator Adams: I do not know how many kilometres there are between the community and Tuktut Nogait National Park. Do you know how far the proposed site is from the community?
Mr. Prince: It would be about 60 kilometres to the farthest edge of the anomaly. Quite a bit of it is right around Paulatuk.
Mr. Robertson: Darnley Bay Resources has had many discussions with the local residents. I believe there is fairly good support for exploration in that area.
Senator Adams: Will you run into any problems with the depth of the water in the area relative to the size of ships that must navigate that water in the summer months? In some places, the depth of the water is a problem for ships. It is not deep enough for them.
Mr. Prince: You would probably have to use barge transportation to get the ships into deeper water, yes. The transportation routes were a factor that affected our decision at Raglan. We worked closely with the Inuit people there to schedule our ships in and out so that there was no disruption of their activities. It was done in consultation with the local community.
Senator Adams: You said that you employ 75 people from the local community. The agreement with the local television station has worked out well. I was interested in the fact that they have been cooperating fully with the community by training people. You did a good job there. It takes a while to start that type of thing and I hope the same will happen again in the near future.
I understand the concerns about the caribou. With all the new technology we have today, I am concerned about what will happen to the local people, the Paulatuk.
Senator Buchanan: It is my understanding that the area we are looking at here is two or three per cent of the total park. That is not very much.
Mr. Robertson: It represents two and one-half per cent of the total park.
Senator Buchanan: What is the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories? I understand that they have no objection. In fact, they would agree with this small percentage being excluded from the park; is that correct?
Mr. Robertson: Yes, that is what we heard.
Senator Buchanan: There is a small population in the Paulatuk area. However, I understand that the unemployment rate there is very high, from 60 to 80 per cent.
Mr. Robertson: I heard it was 80 per cent.
Senator Buchanan: That is right.
Looking at those facts, if you were to start an underground mine, what length of time would you be looking at here? For how many years would there be employment for people as a result of mines in at that area?
Mr. Prince: As everyone knows, mines do not last forever.
Senator Buchanan: We know that in Cape Breton. I have lived with that fact for a long time. There are different kinds of mines.
Mr. Prince: That is true, but there are some commonalities in the sense of their time span. A great deal depends on the size of the original deposit. Because metal prices go in cycles, you must find something that is good, big and rich enough to withstand the pressures at the bottom of the cycle, where we are now. Our goal is to try to find those world-class deposits. If you get a world-class deposit, you are probably talking at least 50 years. More commonly, however, the types of deposits that are mined in Canada provide work for about a decade.
You must look at what benefits flow to the community as a result of that window of opportunity that you have. There are not only immediate benefits here, but also long term benefits with respect to working with local people. A diversity of skills is needed in the mining industry. You need accountants, lawyers, truck drivers, and a broad variety of skilled people. If we end up training people as a result of this mining operation, those skills can be transferred to other opportunities. We look at it in that holistic sense.
Senator Buchanan: You are looking at an area that has a high unemployment rate at this time. The economic benefits are not that great at the present time, so you are probably looking at moderate to long-term economic values in this area in terms of employment -- that is, direct employment, indirect employment and economic benefits.
Mr. Prince: One would hope that is the case. There is no guarantee that we will find a deposit. Our focus is to get those skills at the exploration stage. Our commitment is to begin with training. For example, Darnley Bay Resources Limited would like to go up there this winter and start training people on how to conduct physical surveys.
Senator Buchanan: Because the Bluenose caribou herd is transient, I understand it would really be in no danger as a result of this small area being excluded. Even if the herd were in that area, it is my understanding that the protections would be built in to ensure there is no danger to the caribou herd; is that correct?
Mr. Prince: When we do our exploration, we must follow all the rules and regulations set down by the people of Canada with respect to our land use permits. They are sometimes quite stringent on how you can do things, from crossing a small creek with equipment to the time you can actually work.
Senator Buchanan: Even if this area is excluded from the park, the protections are there.
Mr. Prince: There are many. We must work with the conditions imposed by the Inuvialuit as well. It is a cooperative thing, and hopefully we can do that.
Senator Fitzpatrick: I am sorry I was late in arriving. I am sure you have covered some of this material.
Can you tell me the size of the area that you wish to have excluded? I heard it is about 2.5 per cent of the park area that is proposed.
I am also interested in knowing whether these new results are further to the new airborne work that was done or interpretation of work that was done previously.
What would you anticipate being your next step in doing exploration in the area?
How does the anomaly that is shown in the park area rate with the other anomalous areas you have?
Mr. Robertson: We mainly became involved because we felt that these were strong magnetic anomalies that made good exploration targets. They were very shallow. Some other anomalies within that area are stronger and closer to the surface, but we do not know if those are the best ones or not. We cannot say how the area in the park relates to the rest until we explore it. You never know until you do some detailed ground surveys and drill it.
The plans are, if all goes well, to do some ground geophysical surveys next summer. So far, we have only done airborne surveys. Detailed ground surveys will not just be magnetic but electro-magnetic -- EM -- looking for conductors. Electrical conductors or deposits like nickel show up as EM conductors. If we see EM conductors, hopefully we can test all five areas. If we can get access to the one in the park, that would be six.
We can do the ground surveys, EM, in May and then choose the best targets to drill at that point. The plans next summer are to drill several drill holes, a total of 5,000 metres of drilling. We will take it from there. We can keep doing more ground surveys and more drilling. Ultimately, it will take a great deal of drilling. It may take several years to explore.
Senator Butts: At one point in your preliminary remarks, you said that either you or the Inuvialuit wanted this settled before the boundaries are set. Our understanding is that the boundaries were set, agreed, signed, sealed and delivered in 1996. We would not be here if the boundaries were not set.
Mr. Prince: That is obviously a point of contention.
Senator Butts: Could you tell me precisely when you came on the scene?
Mr. Prince: Yes. We were first contacted by Darnley Bay Resources about five years ago with a proposal to become involved with this. At that time, the information suggested that it was not economical, so we did not pursue it any further. Our recent involvement was only one month ago.
You are raising a fundamental question. I cannot speak to relations between Parks Canada and the Inuvialuit themselves because I was not there. However, I do know about the process that the federal government uses to rank these areas for mineral potential. It is quite a confusing process even for me, a geologist. I can imagine how the people of Paulatuk felt when they heard the presentations about the words "mineral potential." There would have been much confusion.
Their system has a very course ranking scale to it, and there are approximately seven categories. This one has worked its way up from the bottom level to the fifth highest level. You cannot go any further unless you have a drill core with some mineralization in it or something on the surface.
In this case, our target is down deep. Technically it cannot rise on their system much higher without someone doing more work. The federal government typically does not do that kind of work because they do not have the budget.
Senator Butts: I just want to know the sequence of events here.
When I read the testimony before the committee in the House of Commons, I learned that the Inuvialuit own 1.7 per cent of Darnley Bay Resources. Where is that now? Do you know?
Mr. Prince: I do not know.
Senator Butts: What is your relationship with Darnley Bay?
Mr. Prince: We have signed an agreement with Darnley Bay. The agreement calls for us to purchase approximately $250,000 worth of shares in their company shortly. They will then spend money on behalf of the joint venture which they have with Inuvialuit.
Senator Butts: Darnley Bay is still around; is it just you speaking to this matter today?
Mr. Prince: Yes.
Senator Butts: Perhaps we should be listening to Darnley Bay.
Mr. Prince: I think that would be a good idea.
Senator Butts: I believe it is important to understand that the Inuvialuit have some ownership in Darnley Bay. In fact, I understand they have an agreement on an opportunity to participate in 35 per cent of the project base. Will that have any influence on your involvement in this project?
Mr. Prince: We would welcome them as partners. From a good economic development point of view, it is constructive to have local people involved in these kinds of projects. We found out in the rest of the world, if you come in as an outsider and try to impose things on people, it does not work. You must have local people involved. We would welcome that.
Senator Butts: Do you know whether Darnley Bay was involved in this new initiative to change the park boundaries upon which they had agreed and to give up their rights?
Mr. Prince: I do not know the history in detail. I would prefer that you ask the Inuvialuit or Darnley Bay themselves.
Senator Butts: Is your agreement to participate predicated on the entire anomaly being removed from the park?
Mr. Prince: No.
Senator Butts: That helps me a little bit.
I read an article in The Globe and Mail the day after this committee heard other testimony. They said that while Falconbridge will no doubt continue to investigate the mining possibilities of the so-called Darnley Bay anomaly, officials with the company said having access to the area covered by the park is key.
Mr. Prince: It is key in the sense that we still do not know the best place to find the deposits, if they exist, in that anomaly.
Senator Butts: Of the seven sites, do you know if some are better or closer to the surface than others? How does the one within the park relate to the others?
Mr. Prince: The real answer to that is that we do not know. We suspect certain things, but our science is not yet so exact to be able to determine that. We are not at that point yet.
The more information you get, the better your confidence is in making those exclusionary decisions. However, we are not at that point yet.
Mr. Robertson: You have to do ground surveys first.
Senator Butts: That same article in The Globe and Mail after the last meeting stated that:
...in order to understand whether the metals actually add up to an economic mining project, Falconbridge needs access to the entire area... New discoveries of similar mineralization suggest that the deposit lies off to the side of the anomalies...
Mr. Prince: That was the reporter's interpretation.
Senator Butts: He claims to be quoting a spokesperson for Falconbridge.
Mr. Prince: I was the spokesperson.
Senator Butts: Were you were misquoted?
Mr. Prince: I would not say that. This is a complex subject. It is difficult for someone to interpret it in just a few minutes.
Senator Butts: I have in my hand the prospectus for phase two of the project, which was available July 27, 1998. What is significant about this is a place called "Area C."
Mr. Prince: Is this the Darnley Bay prospectus?
Senator Butts: Yes. Area C runs in the park as well as outside the anomaly. It goes down through the park along the Hornaday River Valley. That tends to back up the notion The Globe and Mail reporter was given that you do not know how far you will go in this park.
Mr. Prince: That red line represents the edge of the gravity anomaly.
Senator Butts: I understand that, but this is a map of the prospectus for phase two of the project.
Mr. Prince: That is right.
Senator Butts: If I go to phase two, there is no limit on how far you might need to go into the park.
Mr. Prince: There is certainly a limit beyond which deposits probably would not occur. What that is would be a good question. Would it be a kilometre or two past the edge of that red line, for example?
Senator Butts: Or 200.
Mr. Prince: If it is 200, I think nature is doing something pretty spectacular here.
Senator Gustafson: Seven hot spots are indicated, and then one spot at 2.5 per cent. Is it impossible for a mining company to acquire a permit to work within a park?
Mr. Prince: No, not at all.
Senator Gustafson: Is there a dollar factor here that is important to the exclusion of the boundaries? Does the federal government get more money out of the fact that you must have a permit and you must work within the park than if the deposit is outside of the park?
Mr. Robertson: A mining company cannot take out a permit within a national park. The parks are closed to exploration and mining.
Senator Gustafson: That clarifies it for me.
The land rights here are held by Darnley Bay Resources outside of the park area.
Mr. Prince: Permits are taken out by Darnley Bay Resources outside of the park area. There are also Inuvialuit lands under the settlement agreement with the federal government. There are two categories.
The Chairman: Thank you for sharing your views with us today. We might call representatives of Darnley Bay Resources as witnesses in order to better understand this issue.
Senators, we are pleased to have with us Mr. John Nagy, a wildlife biologist, who is very familiar with the movement of the caribou in the area we are discussing. He has been working there for eight years.
Mr. Nagy, your evidence is important to us. Please give us your views on this matter.
Mr. John Nagy, Wildlife Biologist, Government of the Northwest Territories: Honourable senators, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present some of the information that my colleagues and I have collected on the Bluenose caribou herd. I am the supervisor of wildlife management in the Inuvik region for the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development for the Government of the Northwest Territories. I have lived and worked in the region for eight and one-half years. In addition to supervising a staff of biologists and technicians, I do wildlife management related research on the Bluenose caribou herd, Peary and other caribou of the Arctic Islands, and muskox.
I actively participate in the co-management of wildlife resources in the region by regularly meeting with community hunters and trappers organizations. I am a member of the Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the Northwest Territories. That council deals with wildlife management issues in the Inuvialuit settlement region. I am also a member of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. I am an alternate member on the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board and the International Porcupine Caribou Board. I also serve as the Canadian member on the Tuktut Nogait National Park Management Board.
I have taken a lead role in working with community hunters and trappers organizations, co-management boards and other government agencies in the region to develop co-management plans for a number of wildlife populations, including the draft co-management plan for the Bluenose caribou herd.
Work done to collect the information that I am presenting today was co-funded by the wildlife co-management boards for the Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, Sahtu and Nunavut land claim settlement areas. The work was done cooperateively with biologists in those areas, in the Yukon, and with Parks Canada.
Bluenose caribou are barren-ground caribou. In 1992, there were about 122,000 animals in the herd. At the present time, we do not know the status of the herd. In other words, we do not know whether it is stable, increasing or decreasing. However, we plan to do a survey in the summer of either 1999 or 2000 to get that information.
The range of the Bluenose caribou herd is in the northwestern portion of the Northwest Territories. You may have heard about the Porcupine caribou herd which migrates between Alaska, northern Yukon and the extreme western portion of the Northwest Territories west of the Mackenzie Delta. The range of the Porcupine caribou herd does not overlap that of the Bluenose caribou herd.
The Bluenose caribou herd migrates over portions of the Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, Sahtu and Nunavut land claims settlement areas. The herd is harvested by 12 mainland communities. Each year between 5,000 and 6,000 caribou are harvested. Approximately 90 per cent of the annual harvest is taken by subsistence users. With numbers of caribou on some Arctic islands at historically low levels at the present time, mainland herds may become increasingly important sources of caribou meat for some of the Arctic island communities.
In 1994, we compiled all the distribution information available for the herd and mapped that data using a computer-based geographic information system. The maps for the calving, breeding and winter periods suggested that there might actually be several herds in the area known as the range of the Bluenose caribou herd. In the winter of 1995-96, we started satellite tracking and DNA studies to find out if there was more than one herd in that area.
In March 1996, we put satellite collars on 15 adult cows, including five near Kugluktuk -- formerly known as Coppermine -- five near Coleville Lake, and five near Inuvik. We now have two and one-half years of movement data for those animals.
This map shows the movement of the cows tracked by satellite from March 1996 to March 1997. The red lines show the movement of caribou collared near Kugluktuk. The blue lines show the movement of caribou collared near Inuvik. The green lines show the movement of caribou collared near Coleville Lake in the Sahtu region. The black line shows the boundary of Tuktut Nogait National Park, including the proportions proposed for the Sahtu and Nunavut settlement areas.
This next map shows the movement of cows tracked by satellite from March 1997 to March 1998. The movement patterns of the collared cows are similar to those observed in year one of the study.
The next map shows the movement of the cows tracked by satellite from March 1998 to September 1998. The movement patterns of the collared cows were similar to those observed in year one and two.
The results of the satellite tracking study supported the idea that there were at least two separate herds. The caribou of the Bluenose-East herd calve in the headwaters of the Rae and Richardson rivers east of Bluenose Lake. They breed northeast of Great Bear Lake and winter along the north, east and south shores of Great Bear Lake.
The caribou of the Bluenose-West herd calve in the western Melville Hills, in the park area, or on Cape Bathurst. They breed in the Anderson River area and winter between the Tuktoyaktut Peninsula and south to the headwaters of the Anderson River.
In the winters of 1996-97 and 1997-98, we collected samples of meat from Bluenose caribou harvested by hunters in Kugluktuk, Paulatuk, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, Fort Good Hope, and Deline. We also collected samples from Porcupine caribou harvested by hunters along the Dempster Highway.
The DNA in those samples was analysed at Dr. Curtis Strobeck's laboratory at the University of Alberta to determine how the Bluenose-East, Bluenose-West and Porcupine caribou were genetically related. The analysis indicated that those three groups of caribou were genetically different.
Pregnant cows shed their antlers shortly after calving. Those antlers are a source of DNA.
In 1998, we collected recently cast antlers from calving areas east and west of Bluenose Lake to further verify that the two groups are genetically different. Those samples are currently being analysed at Dr. Strobeck's laboratory.
Cows arrive on calving grounds from mid- to-late May. They are near or at the bottom of their annual energy cycle and may be in poor condition. Most cows calve during the first or second week in June. Some females may calve earlier or later than that.
The cows usually select areas that are free of snow and where the vegetation greens up early. The cows rely on nutritious, high-quality sprouting plants to replenish their energy reserves and to produce milk for their newborn calves.
Cows that are disturbed during calving may injure or abandon their calves. Injured or abandoned calves usually die. The normal feeding activities of cows may be interrupted by repeated disturbance. This may result in reduced milk production and reduced calf survival.
During the first week to 10 days after the cows give birth, they form large post-calving groups. Disturbance of those groups may cause panic reactions that lead to injury or abandonment of calves. Again, injured or abandoned calves usually die.
We defined the pre-calving, calving and post-calving range of the herd by overlaying distribution information documented during 10 surveys done between 1974 and 1988.
This map shows the pre-calving, calving and post-calving range of the herd that was defined using that historical information. The red line shows the boundary of the park, again including the areas that are proposed for the Sahtu and Nunavut. The areas in dark blue are areas where caribou were seen during one of those 10 surveys. The areas in green are areas where caribou were seen during five of the 10 surveys. Areas in red are areas where caribou were seen during all of the 10 surveys.
It is important to note that caribou were not seen in all areas of the known pre-calving, calving and post-calving range every year when surveys were done. The distribution of the caribou during that period may shift from year to year, or over a period of years. However, caribou were observed in some portions of the known range in most or all years when surveys were done. Most of these areas are in the park.
The core area used during this period was defined as that area where caribou were observed during 40 per cent or more of the surveys done between 1974 and 1988. Those areas include the light blue, green, dark green, yellow and the red areas. Approximately 75 per cent of the core area falls within Tuktut Nogait National Park. In some years, caribou were observed calving outside the park.
The next map shows the areas used by the cows tracked by satellite during the pre-calving, calving and post-calving areas during 1996, 1997 and 1998. The red dots show the areas used by the Bluenose-East group. The blue and green dots show the areas used by the Bluenose-West caribou. The grey area shows the known range before we did the satellite tracking study. Thus, we are getting new information on movement and distribution of caribou in that area.
The Bluenose-West caribou used areas in and west of Tuktut Nogait National Park during this time period. We are seeing those caribou in the park as well as adjacent to the park.
On hot calm days during the early summer, the caribou group up for relief from biting insects, mostly mosquitoes. On cooler, windy days they disperse. This is normally the time when we do photographic surveys to estimate the number of animals in the herd.
On hot, calm days most of the herd can be found in 15 to 20 groups. We locate those groups, photograph them and then count the caribou on the photographs. The largest group that we have photographed to date is about 10,000 animals.
During this period, caribou are less sensitive. The calves can travel readily and food is more abundant.
This next map shows the early summer range of the herd that was defined using historical information. The red line indicates the boundaries of the park. The dark blue areas are where we saw caribou during one out of nine surveys. The dark green areas are where caribou were seen during five out of the nine surveys. The red areas are where caribou were seen during all of the 10 surveys.
Most of the information that we have for this period comes from the Bluenose-West group. Very little work has been done east of Bluenose Lake during that time period.
The areas most frequently used by the Bluenose-West caribou were areas in the western portion of the park, along the coast south of Paulatuk, and up on Cape Bathurst.
The next map shows the areas used by the cows tracked by satellite during the early summer period of 1996, 1997 and 1998. The red dots show the areas used by Bluenose-East caribou. The blue and green dots show the areas used by Bluenose-West caribou. The grey area shows the range known prior to the satellite tracking study. Bluenose-West caribou used areas in, and west of, Tuktut Nogait National Park during this time period.
Some people believe the caribou no longer calve in the park. This may be because the spring caribou migration past Paulatuk has been later than normal in recent years, and fewer caribou were seen. A possible explanation is that the spring migration used by most of the herd has shifted away from Paulatuk. The satellite tracking information indicates that most of the collared cows have been migrating to the calving grounds from areas to the south and southwest during the past three years. As a result, they would not be visible to people in Paulatuk. My understanding is that the caribou used to travel past Paulatuk onto the calving areas. In at least the last three years, we have been seeing caribou moving up from the south and southwest, and not passing by the community. That is a possible explanation as to why people believe that the caribou no longer calve there.
This map shows the area proposed for exclusion from the park in relation to the pre-calving, calving and post-calving range of the herd. The red line shows the boundaries of the park. The purple line -- which I hope is visible to you here -- is the area proposed for exclusion. We know the caribou used portions of that area in five to seven of the ten years when surveys were done during the pre-calving, calving and post-calving period. Basically, those are the greens, the dark greens and yellows. During 1997 and 1998, cows tracked by satellite also used the area.
The area proposed for exclusion is important because it falls within the known pre-calving, calving and post-calving range of the herd. Caribou that use that area, and their habitat, should be given some level of protection.
The Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development has initiated plans to work with people in the communities, the co-management boards, and other governing agencies to find ways to provide protection for caribou and their habitats on all calving grounds in the Northwest Territories.
The Chairman: That was a fascinating submission. I did not realize things like that were going on in the world. Thank you very much for sharing it with us.
Senator Adams: Are you saying that 75 per cent of the calving occurs in Tuktut Nogait National Park?
Mr. Nagy: Seventy-five per cent of the core calving areas are in the park.
Senator Adams: That study has been ongoing for how many years?
Mr. Nagy: There has been work going on with regard to the Bluenose caribou herd since the 1940s. Information that was actually mapped, and that we had access to, goes back to 1974. The information that we presented here includes the information collected since 1974.
Senator Adams: You had some information about the herd size being 122,000. There is no information as to whether that number is increasing or decreasing. People in those communities used to hunt a lot of caribou at one time. However, the communities have changed. My concern is whether those numbers will increase or decrease. In some communities the caribou have been wiped out. Other areas, such as south Baffin Island, which had very few caribou 40 years ago, is now overpopulated. We have to kill between 2,000 and 3,000 every year.
Nature is nature. It operates on its own terms. My concern is that if we pass Bill C-38, and the mine goes ahead, it might affect the caribou migration or calving areas.
I have a second question. We know that calving is sometimes disturbed by the wolf population. They go there every year to make sure that there are no wolves around during the calving season. Has there been very much study done of how the caribou are disturbed by wolves during the calving season?
Mr. Nagy: Working on this issue for the last few years has been very interesting for me. We have been trying to complete a photo census on the herd for a number of years. We thought that the caribou that range between Inuvik and Coppermine and down to Great Bear Lake were all part of one herd, and that we were just basically missing many animals. The work that we have just done explains why we have had difficulty. It has helped us to do better population work, to get better estimates of caribou.
In terms of assessing what potential effect development in that area would have on habitat, we do not have enough information to assess that. I think it is important to note that all calving grounds are not the same. We hear a lot about the lands supporting the Porcupine caribou herd, but this calving ground is quite different. To try to assess that situation, we are working with Parks Canada biologists to map the habitats in that area, to determine how much good-quality calving habitat is there, and why the caribou are selecting particular areas. When we have that information, we will be able to predict what might happen or put measures in place to prevent disturbance and impacts on caribou in that area.
In discussions with people in Paulatuk, I have not heard any comments that there are a lot of wolves there. My understanding is that caribou tend to select areas to calve where there are fewer predators. We know that there are a number of wolves on the wintering areas, but it is my understanding that caribou tend to select areas where there are fewer predators.
Senator Adams: Food is very expensive in that area. People hunt because they depend on the meat from the caribou. Do you know anything that would indicate that hunting is decreasing every year? You say that between 5,000 and 10,000 are killed every year by the locals; is that true?
Mr. Nagy: For what was originally called the Bluenose caribou herd, the harvest was between 5,000 and 6,000 annually. That is based on information that we summarized in 1992. There are ongoing harvest studies in the Inuvialuit settlement region, the Gwich'in settlement region, the Sahtu, and Nunavut. We are hoping that this coming year we will be able to get access to all the information and get current numbers.
Approximately 1,500 to 1,800 of the 5,000 to 6,000 animals are taken by people in Coppermine or Kugluktuk. The harvest by western communities would be about 4,000 to 4,500 annually. As you know, the caribou do not always migrate the same way in the fall or the spring. Some communities may not see caribou in one year and must travel further to hunt them. In some years, they are very lucky. The caribou come close by and people are successful in finding them.
Senator Adams: You mention between 25,000 and 30,000 calves are born every year; could it be more?
Mr. Nagy: A ballpark guess is that there are approximately 40,000 cows that calf in this area; about 5,000 to 6,000 up on Cape Bathurst; the rest would be calving over in the headwaters of the Rae and Richardson rivers. In a herd of 122,000 caribou, they are not all cows; about a third of them are bulls. There are yearlings and younger animals and also mature cows producing calves.
Senator Adams: Does it take approximately two years before a cow can produce a calf?
Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding that on a good range, if the yearlings are in good shape, they can breed. On moderate or poor ranges, it usually takes two years.
Senator Butts: Is it your conclusion that the proposed exclusion area of this park is important for caribou mothers and calves, or is it no longer important?
Mr. Nagy: I can say that the area falls within the core calving area, therefore, it is important. One of the standards to assess the importance of an area is how often it is used and we know that portion is used fairly frequently by caribou during that time period.
We do not know how it relates to the entire core calving area with respect to the relative importance in relationship to the entire area. As I was mentioning earlier, we are starting to map habitats and to determine where the best habitats are. That would give us better information to say a particular area is critical, most important, or less important. At this point in time, I could not identify one location and say that this is the most important area, or that it is more important than any other areas within the core area.
Senator Butts: From your experience, is a national park the best means of protecting a critical caribou habitat?
Mr. Nagy: It depends on the situation. The establishment of national wildlife areas is one way, but there are others. There are a number of options such as protection measures during important seasonal time periods. Such measures were but together for the Peary herd.
Senator Butts: You are on the management board of this park; is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Senator Butts: Was there aboriginal input into the process of preparing the co-management plan? Were all the communities involved? Do you take into consideration the traditional heritage of the people?
Mr. Nagy: Are you speaking about the co-management plan for the Bluenose caribou herd?
Senator Butts: Yes.
Mr. Nagy: Yes, I have been involved in that process. I started the process in 1994. The first step was to summarize all the information that was available on the Bluenose caribou herd. We put together a presentation and took it to each of the hunters and trappers committees in the 12 communities on the mainland. We had a meeting with them and raised the issues that we felt were important. They raised the issues that they felt were important. All the information was put together into a package.
A year later we went back to the communities and, on the second tour, we brought representatives from each of the land claim co-management boards. We had someone from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Sahtu Renewable Resource Board, the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board, and the Wildlife Management Advisory Council. We brought those people to each of the communities so they could get a sense of the concerns. For example, the Inuvialuit would appreciate the concerns of the Sahtu in respect to the Bluenose caribou herd. We went through a similar presentation, identified the concerns and issues that were raised by all communities and by us.
We then took that information and prepared a draft co-management plan that lists our concerns as well as community concerns. It also identifies specific solutions and actions to deal with those issues. We put it into a five-year time frame and identified specific groups of people to address those issues. You can put together a plan, but unless someone says yes, we will do it, it is just a document that sits on a shelf.
In the plan, there are tasks for the co-management boards, the community hunters and trappers communities, renewable resource councils, Parks Canada, our government, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and so on. The intent of the plan is to prepare an annual report on the activities for each year so people throughout the area know what is going on.
In terms of developing the plan, it is community-based. We have done a significant amount of consultation with the communities. With regard to research in the area, through the co-management process, we consult with and require approval from each of the affected communities, the hunters and trappers organizations, before we can get a research permit. If I am doing work on the Bluenose caribou herd within the area, I need support from the 12 communities that use that herd before I can continue on with that research. We also report back to the communities and, as well, to the co-management boards on the results of the work.
Senator Butts: In light of all your experience and research, would you be able to predict the possible negative effects of mineral exploration and ore extraction on the caribou herd and its range?
Mr. Nagy: That is a difficult question. I have also served on the environmental impact screening committee for eight years for the Inuvialuit settlement region. In order to minimize impact on the caribou and its habitat, activities can be scheduled in areas during periods when the caribou are not there. For example, if exploration activity is done during winter when the caribou are not in that area, it will not have an impact on the herd.
In order to be able to really assess the impact of extraction that, you need to know where it will occur, what infrastructures are associated with it, and the relative sensitivity of the particular area that you are dealing with. Until you have that information, it is difficult to determine what impact there may be.
Senator Butts: Is it difficult to know until the deed is done?
Mr. Nagy: That is a difficult question. In 1980, there was a lot of activity there with oil exploration. The caribou never left. They are still up there.
Senator Butts: We are not talking about exploration, we are talking about mining. We are talking about the infrastructure -- that is, roads, airplanes, and so on.
Mr. Nagy: We are talking about mining facilities and shopping centres. That is what I heard this morning.
The Chairman: The calving season is short. It is only for one month. Given the concern about an exploration or mining element in the calving area, if there were a condition that the company had to cease these activities during the calving season, would that reduce the concern?
Mr. Nagy: In terms of exploration?
The Chairman: No, in terms of the health and viability of the herd. If there were to be a regulation that specified that, during the calving season, there is to be no mining activity whatsoever, would that alleviate the concerns related to calving, if the boundaries were changed?
Mr. Nagy: I do not know. Basically, a mine is developed with the associated infrastructure. Are you suggesting that the whole system should shut down for that one-month time period?
The Chairman: Yes, in recognition of the fact that there is a tremendous movement of these herds. They will be going through the area outside the park where there will be mining. Clearly that mining is in the area where, as you have shown us, there are movements in these herds.
When the minister appeared before us, he was concerned that this is a core area for calving. If there were no activity in the area during the calving season, those concerns would be reduced substantially. Do you agree with that at this time?
Mr. Nagy: That would be an important mitigating factor, yes.
Senator Hays: Most of my questions have been answered. In your written presentation, you say that caribou use the area and that their habitat should be given some level of protection. Can you be more precise in answer to this question with the Government of the Northwest Territories, which is in favour of changing the park boundaries. Can you be more precise as to what this committee should do with respect to proposed changes to the park boundaries? You can say no to the changes if you like, but can you answer this question in other ways?
Mr. Nagy: At this point, I would have to say "No" -- not for political reasons, but simply because, at this point in time, we do not have adequate information to make recommendations about how critical that parcel of land is during the caribou calving period.
As I indicated earlier, we are in the process of collecting that information on the distribution of calving habitats and the relative importance of different areas.
Senator Hays: I had not realized that this park is located at the juncture of other subdivisions of the Northwest Territories, namely, Nunavut and Sahtu; and the southern and eastern boundaries follow those divisions. Is that because, in those areas, there is no agreement to the expanded boundaries of the park, whereas the Inuvialuit have agreed? Can you comment on that?
Mr. Nagy: Parks Canada would be the best people to answer that question. The various land claims are at different stages of implementation. There may be an intent to proceed, but they have other business. They recently signed off building the structures within the land claims areas.
Senator Hays: Is it possible that Parks Canada is concerned that if they lose this agreement before the committee, they might not regain it? In other words, for the same reasons that an agreement with the Sahtu and the Nunavut areas is difficult to finalize, it might be difficult to do so in this case, if it is reopened?
Mr. Nagy: Perhaps not directly, but it is important to note that the caribou calve outside the park. We know that. We will have to develop protective measures for these lands, even if they are outside the Tuktut Nogait and the Northwest Territories, and even if the Nunavut and the Sahtu areas are not attached to the park. We still must work towards developing that protection for the caribou.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Nagy, I understand that you are here as a representative of the Government of the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Would the Government of the Northwest Territories receive any royalties from this mining development? Do you have any forecast has to how much revenue you would receive if this mine project went ahead?
Mr. Nagy: I cannot answer that. However, I believe our minister will be speaking at this committee's hearing next week. You should direct that question to him.
The Chairman: That is correct. He will be here next Tuesday and you will have the opportunity to ask that question then, Senator Cochrane.
Senator Adams: Only about 15 caribou are wearing radio collars. The radio collars do not indicate how the caribou have herded together. On average, during winter there are only 10 or 20, or sometimes five caribou. I want to make sure that the committee understands that those 122,000 caribou that were mentioned do not travel the same routes. They could be scattered all over. The only information provided by the radio collars is that the caribou are in the park area.
How long ago did you count the caribou? Sometimes, as they do in the spring, you need an airplane or a helicopter to count them. I want to make sure that the committee members understand that those 122,000 caribou are not always together. They are spread out over the entire area. You only obtained a reading on the 15 caribou wearing collars.
Mr. Nagy: That is a very good point. When we put the collars on, we assume that those animals represent the general movements of the caribou herds during a particular time period. We also do surveys in June to locate the satellite-collared caribou in order to see if they have calved, and to look at the overall distribution during that time period. We know whether there is only one satellite-collared caribou at a particular location or a number of them. Basically, those surveys have told us that there were caribou calving through those areas represented by the coloured dots.
Senator Hays: The east seems to be a discreet group. The west is not. You had to tag two groups, but they seem to be really one group. Am I right on that?
Mr. Nagy: That is a good question. We are trying to address that as well. If we accept the traditional views on caribou fidelity to calving grounds, then there are still two calving areas within the western group. I am putting out more satellite collars this winter to try to address that particular issue. We also have samples of antler material from Cape Bathurst and the western area. We will compare the genetic relationships.
Senator Hays: The west group, as shaded on the map, is really concentrated at calving time in the park, including the area in question; is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
The Chairman: Are they called Bluenose caribou because they have blue noses, or because they come from Bluenose Lake? Are there other reasons?
Mr. Nagy: The story I heard is that one of the biologists working on caribou back in the 1950s or 1960s landed on a big lake. He was from Nova Scotia, so he named the lake after a famous schooner.
The Chairman: They are everywhere.
Mr. Nagy: Because the herd calved in that area, it was named the Bluenose caribou.
The Chairman: Thank you, on behalf of the committee. Your evidence was most interesting. We wish you well in your future endeavours, and we thank you for being with us today.
May I have members' permission to table in the Senate our fact-finding report as a result of our trip to Washington?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The committee adjourned.