Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 3, 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 9:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This morning we continue our deliberations on Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act through the creation of the Tuktut Nogait National Park. This is our third day of hearings into the creation of this park and the impact that it will have in the Western Arctic.
The Honourable Stephen Kakfwi is appearing before us today, as he has before. Mr. Kakfwi is the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism in the area and is well known for his important work on these topics. I welcome you, Mr. Kakfwi, to the Senate committee investigating this important bill. We look forward to your comments.
Mr. Stephen Kakfwi, Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, Government of the Northwest Territories: I am here today to present the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories on the creation of the Tuktut Nogait National Park. I should like to begin by reviewing the responsibilities of our government in relation to land claim agreements, economic development, mineral development, and protected areas. I will then review the events leading to the development of our government's position. Lastly, I will present our government's position and recommendation.
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement, like all other land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories, constitutionally entrenches the rights of aboriginal people within their traditional lands. The Inuvialuit leaders expect that the agreement will create an economic base for their people. This is iterated in sections 1(b) and 16(2) of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. As a signatory to that agreement, our government has a solemn responsibility to support the aspirations of the Inuvialuit as provided for in the agreement. Our government's position is that aboriginal people must have greater control over all decisions affecting their lives and futures. This is why our government has taken a partnership approach in working with aboriginal people, and this is why I am here before you today.
As the Minister for Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, I am responsible for wildlife management, forest management, environmental protection, territorial parks and tourism, and promoting economic self-sufficiency through the sustainable development of natural resources. It has been extremely beneficial to be able to integrate economic and environmental factors, since all these issues must be taken into consideration when making resource development decisions.
I must explain to you how we decide whether to support resource development. I believe you are familiar with the challenges facing the north: high unemployment rates, high proportion of young people, a predominantly unskilled workforce, high cost of living, housing shortage, high social program expenditures, and a fiercely beautiful but sensitive environment. Resource development, if it is done right, can help us to meet our objective of economic self-sufficiency. Therefore, our government has taken the position of supporting resource development that meets the following conditions: benefits to northern residents must be maximized; partnerships with northern businesses are maximized; training opportunities for northern residents are provided; value-added opportunities are maximized; and the environment is protected.
I also believe that the Inuvialuit considered these conditions before they made their request to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed national park. Their arrangements with Darnley Bay Resources maximize economic benefits to the Inuvialuit, and the environmental assessment processes established under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement ensure that the caribou and the land will be protected, should the boundary change.
We have taken an additional step towards the protection of important cultural and natural areas. The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asked that our government take the lead in the development of a protected areas strategy. In doing so, the federal government recognized that our government, in cooperation with aboriginal partners and other interest groups, was in the best position to make these important and fundamental decisions. Nothing was to be imposed. Both our government and the federal government are committed to completing the strategy by December of this year. It will be one more tool to promote a balanced approach to land use decisions. It is important to note that the strategy is being developed by and for northerners through a partnership involving governments, land claim organizations, communities, industry, and environmental organizations. Implementing the strategy will require the continued partnership of these organizations, particularly the aboriginal groups.
I firmly believe that if the request of the Inuvialuit with respect to the Tuktut Nogait National Park is denied, we will be in danger of losing the support of aboriginal groups for our protected areas strategy. This is a factor that the federal government has not yet considered.
Our government has also taken the stand that caribou calving grounds must be protected. My department is in the process of working with land claim organizations and resource users to develop protective measures for all the NWT calving grounds. In the case of the Bluenose caribou herd, we recognize that the proposed national park does not include the entire calving grounds. Thus, we will need to develop additional measures. We cannot do this without the partnership of the Inuvialuit and other land claim organizations. The Inuvialuit have already spoken of their commitment to caribou and wildlife protection.
Lastly, our government supports the collection and integration of traditional knowledge into all decision making. We believe that if we use only scientific knowledge, we do not see the whole story. Why? Because science has limitations.
With respect to the Bluenose caribou herd, the knowledge of aboriginal people is based on thousands of years of observation. Scientific data on this herd's movements have been collected for less than 25 years. To his credit, Mr. John Nagy clearly presented the limitations of his research and the conclusions that can be drawn. We need now to continue the scientific research and integrate the traditional knowledge as recommended by the Inuvialuit.
The Government of the Northwest Territories was involved in the negotiations leading to the agreement to establish Tuktut Nogait National Park. In fact, I signed the agreement when it was completed in 1996. Under the agreement, my department is responsible for taking the lead in preparing the community development plan under the direction of the park management board. This plan is to help Paulatuk residents develop and take advantage of tourism and other economic opportunities associated with this park. My department is presently working with the board and the community on this plan.
In February 1998, the Chair of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation wrote to me, as a signatory to the agreement, to request support for a review of the proposed national park boundary under section 22. I consulted with my cabinet colleagues and was directed to consult with all parties to the agreement, as well as the communities and land settlement authorities concerned with the protection of the Bluenose caribou calving grounds.
In March 1998, I met with the other signatories to the agreement, including the Secretary of State for Parks Canada, the Honourable Andy Mitchell. The Inuvialuit reiterated their request for my support. Minister Mitchell advised me that the federal government did not support the request. I met with the president of Darnley Bay Resources. I met with representatives from the Gwich'in and Sahtu, who share the caribou herd with the Inuvialuit. The President of the Gwich'in Tribal Council emphasized the need to work together as northerners to maximize benefits for our people.
At the end of March, I returned to cabinet with the results of this consultation. In reaching a decision, we considered the following factors: The Government of the Northwest Territories should support a development when its overall economic, social and environmental implications are judged to result in net benefits to the people of the north; the park will result in limited economic and environmental benefits for northerners; the Government of the Northwest Territories supports local control of resources.
The concession agreement between Darnley Bay Resources and the Inuvialuit clearly provides the Inuvialuit with the opportunity for future control of the mineral resources. The Tuktut Nogait Agreement provides for local control by the Inuvialuit of economic opportunities. The draft Bluenose management plan supports local control over the Bluenose caribou herd by all users. The Tuktut Nogait Agreement allows for a review of any part of the agreement. Amendment requires written consent of the parties. The government supports the spirit and intent of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
The Government of the Northwest Territories supports the request of the Inuvialuit to review the Tuktut Nogait Agreement. I also recommended support for the Inuvialuit's request to the standing committee to delay passage of Bill C-38 until a review has taken place and three requirements have been met. They are: a full review of the request to modify the western boundary; conclusion of a co-management agreement with the Sahtu; and a review of the implications of the scientific evidence on the two herds.
I base my recommendation on the following: A review will help us to clearly decide what are the objectives of the park and what other mechanisms are available to protect the calving grounds; if the federal government wishes to have the support of aboriginal people in developing future national parks, the federal government must demonstrate some flexibility now. The Tuktut agreement contains a provision that allows for a review of that agreement. That provision does not limit the scope of the reason for requesting a review. If the federal government believes that park boundaries cannot be renegotiated, then this must be made clear at the onset of negotiations. I do not believe this was done. Inflexibility in responding to the Inuvialuit request could jeopardize our protected areas strategy. Agreement from other land claim beneficiary groups to present any of their lands as future protected areas would be difficult or impossible to achieve.
Creation of a park is not necessarily the most effective way of protecting a caribou calving area. More research must be done on alternatives. To finalize the creation of the park, all parties should be in agreement, especially when the park was created at the request of the Inuvialuit, who are the traditional land users.
Senator Spivak: Which communities did you consult with, Mr. Minister? I know there are 12 communities in that area that harvest approximately 5,000 to 6,000 caribou a year from the Bluenose caribou herd. How many of those communities are in agreement with this?
Mr. Kakfwi: The consultation took place with the representatives of the people who live in those communities. I did not go into all the communities to speak to the individuals who live in the communities or the leaders of those communities.
Senator Spivak: Is it true that there are approximately 12 communities that harvest 5,000 to 6,000 caribou a year? This is the information I have. There are more communities than just the ones who live right there.
Mr. Kakfwi: Yes. The communities in my constituency, for instance, around Great Bear Lake, Fort Good Hope, Colville Lake, Deline, Norman Wells, are some of the communities that also harvest this herd.
Senator Spivak: Apparently the pre-calving, calving, and post-calving range areas are the most important habitats. That is in the draft Bluenose caribou co-management plan, that they are the least tolerant to disturbance. Your request will remove an area that is now used 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the time by calving caribou. Are you not worried that this will disturb the caribou? The map I have indicates that the zone in question is in the centre of that calving area.
Mr. Kakfwi: I am probably more worried than you are, because I too need the caribou.
Senator Spivak: I am sure that is true.
Mr. Kakfwi: The people in my community depend on this caribou. We do not know where the calving grounds were 30 years ago. We do not know where the calving grounds were 50 years ago. We do not know where the calving grounds will be in 30 years either.
The scientific information we have is limited. The conclusions we draw from it are thus also limited. We have not used traditional knowledge to the extent we should. In fact, only recently did we find out that there are two genetically different herds. For years we thought there was only one.
Yes, I am concerned about this. That is why flexibility is absolutely necessary.
In the eastern part of the territory, for instance, we have not even concluded the boundary agreement with the people in Nunavut. The Sahtu have yet to finalize any agreement to include lands within their settlement area. I do not think the federal government should be seen to be shutting the door on flexibility when dealing with this issue. We based our decision on the best information we had a few years ago. We may well have to change the boundaries.
If the primary intent is to protect the calving grounds, you had better be ready to move your posts in 10 years or 20 years from now, and that may not be possible.
Senator Spivak: What does traditional knowledge tell you now about the last 25 years? The people do not know where the calving grounds were 30 years ago. Where are they now?
Mr. Kakfwi: When I was growing up in the 1950s, there were no caribou in Fort Good Hope. There were no caribou in Colville Lake. The caribou were somewhere north of Colville Lake. There were winters when there was no caribou meat. I remember that as a child. I do not know where they were, but they were definitely not there.
About five years ago, the caribou ran right through Fort Good Hope. The caribou were running down the streets. They went right into Norman Wells. The caribou were running all over the Sahtu, and that had not happened in my lifetime. That was the first time.
Senator Spivak: I would imagine that they go where they can find green shoots to eat. Is that the reason?
Mr. Kakfwi: We do not know that much about them. We have not spent a great deal of time talking to the elders about the movement and the lifestyle of caribou. That is the point I am trying to make.
Senator Hays: Parks Canada's position is that a agreement was reached, that you were one of the signatories of that agreement, and that they do not want to open it up. They have their reasons, including the precedents and other park boundary issues. It has not been mentioned lately, but there is also the precedent of the Canadian position on the Alaskan national wildlife reserve and the Yukon caribou herd, the Porcupine, that migrate into that area to calve.
You are representing the Government of the Northwest Territories, which has agreed to the park boundaries. In a legal sense, this all boils down to the meaning of section 22. With respect to environmental issues, clearly a park is a good way to protect a calving ground. I do not think anyone would argue with that. We will have to find other ways, because the park does not cover the whole area and never will.
On the legal issue revolving around section 22, tell me what happened to cause the government to change its mind. You have indicated you met with cabinet. What does that mean for the relationship of the Government of the Northwest Territories with the Government of Canada? When did you tell them? What did they say? You had a meeting in March with Secretary of State Mitchell, having met in February with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. As a spokesman of the Government of the Northwest Territories, what is your view of what happened on this legal issue involving section 22? What did you say to the Government of Canada and when did you say it?
Mr. Kakfwi: I cannot tell you everything I said or what other ministers said. Those were informal discussions. My attitude is like Yogi Berra's -- it ain't over until it's over. Within two weeks of the Inuvialuit making it very clear that they wanted a review and that there were concerns about the boundary, the federal government moved ahead on the legislation, slamming the door on any possibility of discussions.It caused everyone alarm.
In the early 1980s, I was the president of the Dene nation, representing the chiefs of the Mackenzie Valley. Parks Canada asked if I would support a proposed park on the east arm of Great Slave Lake. At the time, I said it was an opportunity that our people would be very happy to hear about.
They went in there, and I remember being very surprised at the animosity of the elders, who are usually first-class diplomats. They basically told Parks Canada, "We do not believe you. Yes, maybe you will protect the land and the wildlife, but you will trample on many of our rights. We do not believe a single word you say, and we do not want to talk to you about it. We want you to leave." Those were the words of the chief at that time, who was an elder. I was struck by that and have never forgotten it.
Senator Hays: In this case, they obviously gained the confidence of everyone.
Mr. Kakfwi: Absolutely. The Inuvialuit were the first group in the Northwest Territories to sign an agreement. They were chastised for years by the other aboriginal groups for believing that the federal government would stick to the spirit and intent of that agreement. They took their word for it and signed. That is one of the tests here.
The federal government is committed to doing everything it can to support the development of an economic base and self-sufficiency for the Inuvialuit. That is the intent of the land claims agreement. Yet they slammed the door on reviewing something that will have some impact on their economic self-sufficiency.
Senator Hays: That is interesting, because it highlights why Parks Canada feels so strongly about the importance of getting the legislation through. Perhaps they feel this way because it will be extremely difficult, under the best of conditions, to get any additional lands into the park from the Nunavut or Sahtu territories. If it is opened up for renegotiation, they may feel that it will be negotiated to death. In other words, I am trying to understand the perspective of Parks Canada, as well as the Inuvialuit and the other parties. What is your comment on that?
Mr. Kakfwi: I hope Parks Canada does not feel that this is their last positive contribution to the creation of parks in the Northwest Territories. This clause in the bill says you can have a review, and as Minister Andy Mitchell said, it is a standard clause in all the agreements. The Inuvialuit were led to believe they could have a review at any time prior to the agreement being legislated.
They have referred to this clause and said they want a review. As the government would say, if they want a review and they initiated this, they should not lose control of it.
Senator Hays: In fairness, it has been reviewed. They want a change in the boundary, not a review.
Mr. Kakfwi:They have asked for a review and we have supported that.
Senator Hays: Parks Canada does not want to change the boundary. We are on good grounds. I will make the point now that I do not like the section. I do not feel it is necessary to require unanimity to change something within the agreement. That is how they see the clause; obviously, you see it differently.
Do you see five of the six or three of the six or one of the six? I think Parks Canada is interpreting it that way -- that is, every party would have to agree to change the boundary, which is really what the review would do. I think it has already been reviewed. The positions of the two parties are clear. Do you disagree with that interpretation, and if so, why? They say they have a right to rely on the signed agreement, and section 22 does not give five of the six parties the right to open it up. Only six of the six parties can open it up. That is why I prefaced my questions by asking you about your relationship, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, with the Government of Canada on this delicate issue. I am not sure what happened. Certainly, hard lines have been drawn, and I am trying to get a better understanding from you of why this is the case.
Mr. Kakfwi: Any agreement takes hard work and trust, and is carried forward in good faith. That is fundamental. My initial reaction was, why is there a change of heart now and on what basis would there be reason to support a review? Although there is skepticism, I have kept open mind about it. I discussed it with my cabinet colleagues, and we decided that we have to support the Inuvialuit It is part of the spirit and intent of the way that we work in the north. It is through consensus, and through everyone accommodating everyone else, that the goodwill necessary to see future progress on a whole range of issues can be maintained. By making the concession to have a review, there is some possibility that the Sahtu and the people in Nunavut will move forward in good faith to add areas to this park. In fact you might take time to try to understand why currently we have no agreement with the Sahtu or Nunavut as to additional areas that are to be part of this park, and why we moved with only the Inuvialuit area. If you do not, they may never show up as part of this park that you are so anxious to finalize.
The Chairman:As a signatory to this agreement to establish the national park, Mr. Kakfwi, were you involved in the discussions leading up to its signing?
Mr. Kakfwi: Although I was not personally involved in the discussions, I was briefed on the development of the park and supported it as signed.
The Chairman: The section 22.1 that Senator Hays was referring to states:
Any Party may request a review by the Parties of part or all of this agreement. If all the Parties agree, they shall initiate the review within ninety (90) days of the request.
Can you tell me how the Northwest Territories interpreted that section? What have your colleagues told you, or what is your own position as to the interpretation of section 22.1 of this agreement?
Mr. Kakfwi: I understand it as an agreement that we are all in it together, and should one of us request a review, all of us will be supportive of that request in order to maintain the agreement. Legally, it probably means if one of us does not agree, there is no review. However, what I understand it to mean is that, and it is a northern definition I suppose, we are compelled to support one another in order to maintain support.
Senator Adams: I agree with your answer to Senator Spivak on what happened to the caribou 30 years and 40 years ago. It is the same now all over the territories. I am 63 now, and when I was young we hunted the caribou in the winter. It was typical of the old days. Technology has changed everything now.
Today, the caribou are all over the territory. We do not know where they come from or why this is happening. It might be because there was a sickness. They may get sick and just die off like lemmings. Ten years ago in northern Quebec, the caribou just dropped off a cliff face.
The caribou can move anywhere. You even told us that they walked through your community. You want that land to be available to the herds in the future, but we have to consider what is in the best interests of the community. There are four lakes in that region, and if the caribou do not like one place, they can go to another.
Mr. Minister, I believe certain aboriginal committees worked on the boundary issue. Since the beginning, I have had discussions with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, who are always asking me where we stand now and who is telling the truth to our committee. We get very little information from the committee of the House of Commons because, it seems to me, everyone over there is afraid of their own boss. Senators are different in that we are not elected but appointed. We want to ensure that people in the communities and the caribou are treated properly. We are not really politicians; we need not worry about the next election. We want to ensure that Bill C-38 is good for northern communities.
The Chairman: If it were only true, Senator Adams.
Senator Adams: My neighbour here, Senator Butts, does not live the way we live in the north. Our way of life is different. Here we have the choice of being able to move around and look for a job almost anywhere, but people in the north who have no jobs cannot afford to move around to look for jobs because there are no highways and they cannot afford to get on an airplane.
We heard from representatives of the department last week who told us that the caribou have been moving. Although some of the animals have radio collars for tracking purposes, the information about their movements is not complete.
Mr. Minister, you have held this portfolio for a few years. You and the committee have worked with the Inuvialuit on the question of the boundaries of the park. I have heard you say that there are no boundaries and no agreement so far between Inuvialuit, the Sahtu and Nunavut. They need to reach and sign an agreement so that they know where the boundaries are in the event of any mineral exploration that might occur in the future.
We have heard from you, and others, that section 22 provides for a review of the agreement. However, Parks Canada is saying that they will not change the boundaries. I have some difficulty understanding how the government can take the position that it does not recognize some sections of the agreement, particularly when the economic future of a community is involved. Ten years from now the Bluenose herd will have moved on. Meanwhile, the people of Paulatuk will stay unemployed because Parks Canada will now allow mining in the area.
Although the people of the north hunt the caribou, we also protect them. We have been told that mining operations will not affect the caribou in the park because it will be an underground operation. Let us not forget that the caribou can move anywhere at any time.
Do you have anything to add to what I have said, sir?
The Chairman: I believe the minister agrees with you, Senator Adams.
Mr. Kakfwi: As I understand it, the Sahtu boundary of the proposed park, is not final as it is now laid out. The boundary on the Nunavut side of the park is not final. It will be finalized when you reach agreement with the people of Nunavut on the east side. On the south side, that boundary will be finalized, when and if agreement is ever reached with the Sahtu.
The boundaries of your park have not been finalized, although you may they have been. I understand that there is a proposal to change the boundaries of this park as soon agreements are reached with the people of Nunavut, and the Sahtu. That is why I say it is not over until it is over. It is important that my government shows flexibility, as we continue to work, in good faith and in partnership with the aboriginal organizations whose lands and whose wildlife these agreements encompass.
The only part that is finalized is that part of the boundary over which the Inuvialuit have control. They are asking for a review and I say we must support that.
Senator Adams: Are you telling us that the agreement that was signed did not establish the boundaries of the park and that Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Sahtu and the Inuvialuit can change that boundary so that they can have access to that area where the ore has been found by Falconbridge? Are they able to do that?
Mr. Kakfwi: The Inuvialuit want to change the boundary and our government is open to reviewing that. The main reason for our support is that there is more at stake than this park. What is at stake is the working relationship that we are trying to foster between governments and aboriginal people. We need the support of aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories to develop and implement a protected areas strategy. We need it if we are to develop any more parks and protected areas in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, we must show flexibility and good faith and trustworthiness. Some of those are missing now, but it is not too late.
Senator Adams: Do you follow the work that is being done by the caribou management boards set up by the NTI, the Sahtu and the Inuvialuit? Does the Government of the Northwest Territories employ people to monitor that work?
Mr. Kakfwi: As a government, we support local control. We support the people who are dependent on the land, the wildlife and the resources taking the lead in formulating positions.
A couple of years ago, for instance, the Peary caribou, which is a particular species of caribou indigenous to the high Arctic, were, and still are, in danger of extinction because of climate change. Weather conditions prevent them from being able to get at their food source. They have been starving by the thousands as a result.
My government and the federal government, on the advice of biologists, decided to hire a Hercules aircraft, get some nets and capture about 25 of these animals and fly them down to the Calgary zoo. In this way, we could save genetic stock, so that even if they did become extinct, we could restore when better conditions prevailed.
The Inuit said, politely, "It is kind of a crazy idea. We are not as alarmed as you are. In any case, we do not agree with you. We would like to have some input into the decision on what should be done, if anything at all." As a minister, I agreed.
I am concerned about it. However, Indians are the ones who depend on this caribou for food. If they think that flying them to the zoo in Calgary will not do them any good, then I have to agree, which I did.
Thus, today, we are letting them take the lead on this issue. I thank the senator for bringing that issue up.
The idea for a park was a beautiful suggestion. However, it was not your idea to begin with. Certainly, no one in Ottawa had the idea. It began before the Liberal Party was in government. However, it can still be a good idea. It requires some flexibility, some good-neighbour concessions made. We need to say, "Okay, if you want to review it, then let us have a review and get back on track as soon as we can."
Senator Butts: Mr. Minister, has your government written a formal letter requesting changes to the park boundary?
Mr. Kakfwi: No.
Senator Butts: Is it the policy of your government that the core calving grounds of the Bluenose herd should be open to mineral development or exploration?
Mr. Kakfwi: No.
Senator Butts: At one point in your statement, you said that you do not have enough knowledge, and then at another point you talk about your thousands of years of observation. You certainly had the thousands of years of observation when you signed the agreement in 1996. What was missing?
Mr. Kakfwi: You better run that by me again, senator.
Senator Butts: I have been rereading your presentation. At one point you talk about the need for more knowledge, and then at another you talk about thousands of years of experience of watching the caribou. You had the thousands of years of experience of watching the caribou when you asked for, and signed, the agreement for this park and its boundaries in 1996. What was missing in 1996?
Mr. Kakfwi: Senator, the traditional knowledge was missing. The knowledge that your government and our government used to go ahead with this proposed agreement was the scientific evidence presented to you two weeks ago by John Nagy. That was scientific evidence collected over the last 25 years. The traditional knowledge of the Inuvialuit, the people of Nunavut, and the people of the Sahtu has not been integrated and utilized in developing the proposed park. That is what was missing.
Senator Butts: You spoke about consultation with others in February of 1998. Are these communities also dependent upon Bluenose caribou?
Mr. Kakfwi: The people we consulted with in March, April and May were people involved in the agreement to set up this park. They represent the communities that harvest this caribou herd.
Senator Butts: Did all of these communities request a change in the boundaries of the park?
Mr. Kakfwi: No. The community of Paulatuk specifically requested a review to look at changing the boundaries of the park. I believe the Inuvialuit representatives are in support of that request.
Senator Butts: Did the Gwich'in agree to a change in the boundaries of the park?
Mr. Kakfwi: The president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council said that the most important thing is to ensure that we work in partnership with one another and support each others' aspirations. That is what I said in my presentation. It was an important point, because this is not the only agreement that we will need to conclude between ourselves as governments, and the aboriginal organizations. It is only one of many. However, it is important to maintain the goodwill and the cooperative spirit necessary for future agreements. That was Mr. Nerysoo's main point when we spoke to him in April.
Senator Butts: There is a letter from the Gwich'in Renewal Resource Board dated March 10, 1998, in which the board states, in part, that it opposes any change to the Tuktut Nogait park boundary and feels that any further mining development on or near the calving grounds should be subject to environmental impact review. They explain why they oppose any change in boundaries.
If you are saying that you are compelled to support one another, and that this change will risk that support, it is not there. We have a problem with another group that does not want it changed. Would you react to that, please?
Mr. Kakfwi: I would not be that categorical. I have met with that group. I understood their position at the time. They are a wildlife management board, set up to represent the Gwich'in, the federal government, and the Government of the Northwest Territories. They are a technical group.
Their primary purpose is to look at this specific issue. I am saying, the government has more than this little piece of legislation to deal with. I am trying to deliver, in a month, the protected areas strategy your government asked for. I am not sure I will be able to deliver it in a month. It depends on how we handle these issues. There are many things riding on this. There are sensitive points which must be considered and I raise them with you. It is not such a cut-and-dried issue.
Senator Milne: Mr. Minister, following on from what Senator Butts was saying, you have been telling us that traditional law has not told us where the caribou calve?
Mr. Kakfwi: My point, senator, was that it is not your government's policy to use traditional knowledge in formulating positions and gathering scientific evidence. The Government of the Northwest Territories has moved considerably towards integrating traditional knowledge into our information base when we make decisions.
In developing the boundaries for the proposed park, we did not do that. We did not make the necessary efforts to gather the traditional knowledge of the Inuvialuit and the Sahtu and the people of Nunavut and ask them to put it to use here. Having read the scientific evidence on which we based the proposed park, I know that it is changing. We have not collected information from sufficiently far back. On that basis, if these are the boundaries of the proposed park, what assurance do we have that the calving grounds will not be elsewhere in 30 years. How do you know that 30 years ago they were not in some other place? You do not know that. That is part of the reason we support this. Thirty years from now, when your park is sitting there and there is no calving going on within its boundaries, what is the use of that park?
Senator Milne: My point was that at the time you signed this agreement, you had not explored traditional knowledge in the area. Have you since then? Do you know that the calving grounds move? If they move, then would this not be a logical reason to expand rather than contract the boundaries of the park?
Mr. Kakfwi: Again, if that is the case, then I agree. I also say the federal government is even more compelled to show flexibility, because you have not finalized the boundaries of the park. You must still reach agreement with the people of the Sahtu and Nunavut. I feel you will have difficulty doing that unless you show some flexibility. They will never agree to a boundary, knowing that the minute they make any type of agreement with you, it is locked in.
Senator Milne: If the government shows flexibility, what would happen if Darnley Bay Resources found another anomaly within this area? What do you think would happen to the prospective park?
Mr. Kakfwi: That is a hypothetical question, senator. I know that the Inuvialuit are suggesting a specific concession. That is all we have to deal with at this time. As I said earlier, if the park is being set up mainly to protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, it is a good objective and I continue to support it. However, we must be certain that it is encompassing all the traditional calving grounds of the herd. Our scientific information is limited. Again, just a few years ago we found out that there are two genetically different herds in this supposedly single caribou herd. That is based on our scientific evidence. There is nothing to suggest there was one herd, but that is what we assumed. Now, scientific evidence shows there are genetically different herds in what has been called the Bluenose herd. It makes you wonder how solid the basis for our proceeding was in the first place. That is all the more reason to be flexible.
Senator Milne: I agree with you that this is a short time for a scientific observation of the herd, but it is also a long time to have been observing it through traditional lore. I am astounded that this was not taken into consideration in the first place. These people are on the spot and have been for generations. They know, or they should. Perhaps the herd really does move and the park should be even larger.
The Chairman: Do you wish to comment on that, Mr. Minister?
Mr. Kakfwi: Our traditional knowledge exists, but there is probably greater difficulty in getting access to it. Scientists are always willing to be heard and wishing to give opinions. Elders do not necessarily take that view. I know, from talking to some of them, that they do not always wish to share their information with just anybody. It does require some work. They must know how that information will be used. It is just in the last five years that we have started to make it a formal government policy to integrate traditional knowledge into our research work. Even then, we have taken a great deal of criticism from the scientific community for some of the things that we ask of our staff.
Senator Gustafson: It appears to me that the requested change is not extremely large. They are talking about 2 per cent of the area. You are asking for a review, to at least take a look. That is my understanding.
In your opinion, is there a lack of willingness to compromise here to reach a reasonable agreement?
My background is farming. When I think of some of the things government has done, for example, Bill C-68, I believe they have never understood the position of the farm community. The experience of communities is a tool. In the case of your people, we know the history of that legislation.
In your opinion, is there a lack of the necessary willingness to compromise here, to meet and deal with the situation reasonably, and a lack of understanding of the region and what this means to your people?
Mr. Kakfwi: I believe that once the federal cabinet decides on a position, all members of that party must fall into line. They do not need to think about it any longer. They just need to be as supportive as they can. There is an apparent lack of flexibility, which is unfortunate, because there is more at stake than has been presented on this little dish.
Senator Gustafson: Do you believe there is a hidden agenda here?
Mr. Kakfwi: I am too naive to think so.
Senator Gustafson: Is the department greatly concerned that a precedent will be set?
Mr. Kakfwi: Absolutely. We know there is an ongoing debate in Alaska about the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. I do not know if it is a right-wing element, but there is a pro-development lobby wanting to open up a large area, encompassing the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, to oil and gas exploration. The Americans have not decided what they will do.
Our government has taken a very staunch position, saying absolutely no development should happen in that area. I suppose there is a fear that the federal government may be seen as being a bit hypocritical in that regard.
I do not think that will make any difference to the way the Americans handle their land and resources.
Senator Fairbairn: Mr. Kakfwi, when you described how traditional knowledge has been incorporated into the decision-making process of the Government of the Northwest Territories, you also noted that it was not incorporated into this particular agreement. Why not?
Mr. Kakfwi: I cannot answer with confidence, but I know that the idea of integrating traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge has been a matter of debate in the scientific community for some time. There are some who embrace the idea, while others start off saying, "What is it any way? Is there such a thing as traditional knowledge?" Some outright reject it as nothing but a lot of hocus-pocus and spiritual and cultural beliefs, mixed with some superstition. They say that is traditional knowledge.
In the development of the agreement, all I know is that it was based primarily on the limited scientific information on the calving grounds and the caribou movement, gathered by our government from two caribou herds in this area. How do you get both governments to accept the traditional knowledge of the Inuvialuit, the Sahtu and the people of Nunavut? That is a piece of work in itself.
We would be happy to initiate some work on figuring out how to integrate it, because I think it would be important for use in other areas, not just this one.
Senator Fairbairn: The proposed review would presumably be of the boundaries, but there would be an ongoing review to try to incorporate some of this traditional knowledge of the possible habits of the herds. If this were to take place, would there also be an agreement that no resource development would be permitted while it was ongoing? How long would you envisage such a review lasting?
Mr. Kakfwi: On the question of traditional knowledge, when I was a teenager, I asked my grandfather, "Why do some of the old people talk about bison? Why do they say they used to hunt bison? The buffalo did not come that far north." This conversation was in Dene, and my Dene was limited at the time. He said, "Of course there was bison." What I thought he was talking about was bison, or buffalo. He said, "We used to hunt bison, sell the hides and eat the meat. But they moved out." It was one of the instances when I thought my very religious grandfather was lying. It was a moment of trauma for me as a young man. Why would he say that?
About 10 years ago, a bush pilot said, "I saw some muskox between Good Hope and Norman Wells." I thought the guy was seeing things. Today, there is a herd of muskox living 20 miles out of Norman Wells. They are moving back into the area. My grandfather was talking about muskox, not buffalo or bison.
In the 1800s, people used to hunt muskox and sell the hides to the Hudson's Bay Company. It was a big trade item, but we have no knowledge of it, and there is barely any mention of it in the archives. That is an example of traditional knowledge.
I asked a mountain Dene why a certain mountain range had no sheep. They are mountains. He said, "There was sheep there, but for some reason, the entire herd that lived on that particular range died off." He told me the year it happened. Again, none of our biologists knew that because we do not have that information.
We know that the people pass on information about the movement and lifestyle of wildlife. They know more about caribou than we do. That is evident. We just have not found the right approach yet. That is something all of us should look at when we are considering a review. We should ensure that every effort is made to make use of the traditional knowledge of the aboriginal peoples in that area.
Senator Fairbairn: I understand it that these negotiations, like many, went on for a considerable period of time before an agreement was reached. I believe it took seven years. During that seven years, because of the possible repercussions of the park on the Inuvialuit area, were the elders involved in the consultation, Mr. Kakfwi? Were their views at any time sought at any time?
Mr. Kakfwi: I believe that they were, but it may not necessarily have been for the purpose of gleaning all the knowledge of the elders regarding the caribou to help in the discussions. I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe there was a specific process set up to ensure that the traditional knowledge of the Inuvialuit was considered in the development of this proposed park. I know that was not done. In retrospect, I am saying that it should have been done then and it should be done now.
The Chairman: On that point, Mr. Minister, we were told by Falconbridge last week that it was only in the past year that they realized that within this proposed park area was a small portion of what they optimistically viewed as having potential.This information was not available during the prior seven years of discussion and negotiations. They had looked at the area and turned it down, until an electromagnetic survey made them quite excited about the potential.
Is it true that it was only in the past year that that information became available, and that that is what really motivated the local people to ask for a review, because of new scientific evidence that showed the potential for some exploration opportunities?
Mr. Kakfwi: As far as the mining interest is concerned, I believe that is true. Again, that is something we took into consideration. We also know that the information the mining interests had was limited. It has now increased substantially. They are continuing to work in the area. They did work this summer. The scientific information on which our biologists advised your government, and ours, of where the calving grounds were, and of the behaviour and movement of the caribou, was limited. It did not encompass the traditional knowledge of the aboriginal people.
That compels us to show some flexibility. At the beginning, we supported it in good faith. Now we have some increasingly evident reasons why we should support a review.
Senator Buchanan: I have several observations, Mr. Minister. First of all, I agree that people should be a priority when decisions like this are made. My understanding of this situation, gathered from many meetings, is there is a desire to establish a park. Everyone agrees there should be a park. Second, the Bluenose caribou need to be protected. Three, employment opportunities are needed. Four, there is the possibility of economic development.
I have boiled it down to this: Whether the 2 per cent is excluded from the park or not, I am told that the caribou and calving grounds will be protected. There will be many protections in place, even if the 2 per cent was excluded.
Second, I understand that unemployment is very high in that particular area. If there is development, employment will be created for people in that area from that 2 per cent, plus the area outside the park.
Three, the economy of the area will certainly be enhanced if the 2 per cent is excluded and underground mining proceeds. Approximately 98 per cent of the park will still be there.
Do you agree with my conclusion that the 2 per cent is not very significant compared to what the people will gain in economic development and employment, and also taking into account the protection of the caribou by various government departments?
Mr. Kakfwi: Yes, senator, that is correct. When I looked at the scientific evidence for the location of the core calving grounds in relation to the proposed boundary, I thought, based on the information gathered to date, that the proposed boundary of the park did not encompass it in any case. Your proposed boundary for this park does not even do the job adequately. That is not for me to say. I say the information is limited and points to the need for some flexibility.
Senator Cochrane: It was very interesting, Mr. Minister, to hear you speak this morning, because the caribou remind me of the fish. I have the same problem in my area. Caribou and fish do not know boundaries. We are talking about this small parcel of land in the west. We are told that probably next year, or the year after, these caribou will be calving in areas other than this specific region that the mining company and the people of Paulatuk wish to take over. It is the same with the fish. They know no boundaries.
Let me tell you what is happening in my province. As a result of the problems with our natural resource, we are losing about 10,000 people a year. I can understand why the people of Paulatuk want this parcel of land, if it means that their people will reap economic benefits. The caribou has a large portion, 98 per cent, to wander and to calve and so on, and the people of Paulatuk are only asking for this 2 per cent to provide for their economic benefits.
Can you tell me how many jobs would be created if this little parcel of land were to be given back to these people?
Mr. Kakfwi: I understand the federal government has said it will commit approximately $10 million to the establishment of this park, which would result in at least two jobs in the community of Paulatuk.
Senator Cochrane: Two jobs for $10 million?
Mr. Kakfwi: It must enhance Parks Canada somewhere.
Senator Cochrane: Who will receive the most benefit, then? That is the question that remains to be answered.
Mr. Kakfwi: Senator, there are people in the federal civil service taking care of the land and the water of the Northwest Territories. They go to work every day in Hull. They are not working in Yellowknife. They are not living anywhere in the Northwest Territories. They are living right here in this town, taking care of our resources and lands.
Senator Cochrane: Making decisions as well.
Mr. Kakfwi: I suspect the $10 million will go to some place in Hull.
Senator Cochrane: If this were to go ahead, would your government receive any royalties from this mining development?
Mr. Kakfwi: No, senator. All royalties from resource development in the Northwest Territories flow to the Government of Canada. The Government of the Northwest Territories receives a pittance.
The Chairman: I would like to explore briefly one final area not yet touched upon. I understand that Mr. Nagy, who was here last week and who is your wildlife biologist, is employed by the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Kakfwi: Yes.
The Chairman: I asked him this question, referring to Mr. Mitchell:
The minister's concern when he appeared before us was that this is a core area for calving. If there was no activity in the area during the calving season, those concerns would be reduced substantially. Would you agree with that, or can you agree at this time?
He replied:
That would be an important mitigating issue, yes.
The purpose of the question was to determine if it would be practical for the mining company to desist from any mining activity during this brief calving season. If this 2.5 per cent of 13,000 square kilometres were removed from the park, that would place it back within your jurisdiction, would it not?
Mr. Kakfwi: It would place it back into everyone's jurisdiction, which is what we want. We want the Inuvialuit, ourselves, the Sahtu, and the people of Nunavut to continue working together to do everything we creatively can to protect the wildlife, the land and the environment of the north. Yes, it will throw it right back into our jurisdiction.
The Chairman: In that event, do you think it would be practical for you to consider passing regulations which would prohibit mining activity for those 30 days, assuming they are calving there? The evidence is that they move around, and for many years they have not calved in that area. Assuming that they were calving in those grounds, would it be practical for you to consider regulations which would prohibit any mining activity during the calving season?
Mr. Kakfwi: It is one possibility, yes. Our government could take some measures to address that issue. The federal government also issues licences for mining. It could be a condition of a mining licence that the operator not operate under certain conditions. That would not be an unusual way of doing business.
The Chairman: Mr. Kakfwi, thank you very much. We have gone way over our allotted time because of the committee members' interest in your testimony. We appreciate you sharing your views with us.
Senators, we will now hear from the representatives of Darnley Bay Resources Limited.
I would welcome the representatives of Darnley Bay Resources Limited. Please proceed.
Mr. Bill Allen, Legal Adviser, Darnley Bay Resources Limited: Mr. Chairman, senators, I am not here as a lawyer, I am here as one of the directors and founders of Darnley Bay Resources. Mr. Leon La Prairie, the president, is the real founder of the company. Like him, I have been involved with the company since it began its operations.
Mr. La Prairie is a true Canadian prospector. First, he will tell you about his interest in the anomaly. Then I will report to you on some matters that we understand were raised in earlier hearings, including our arrangement with the Inuvialuit, our relinquishing of some prospecting permits, as requested by the Inuvialuit, and the results of our 1997 airborne survey and their connection to the request by the Inuvialuit to change the park boundary.
Mr. Leon La Prairie, President, Darnley Bay Resources Limited:I do not go as far back as the aboriginal people but my historical background dates back to 1642. One of my ancestors was a corporal in the French army on the Plains of Abraham. We have not lost that battle yet.
I am a proud family man with four children. My parents had nine children. I have six brothers and two sisters. I was born in a log cabin in Timmins. There are four mining engineers in our family. After I served in the army, I went to university. One of my pals in the army was Senator Bill Kelly. I taught him a few things, and he taught me a few things.
After university, I began work as a miner in Timmins. I went up into northern Quebec as an underground surveyor. I worked in Cape Breton as a mining engineer and I have worked in exploration in Quebec and Ontario. In Alberta, I was a mine manager, and also in a uranium operation in Uranium City. I have worked in BC, in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
There are just three of us here today, as two of my colleagues could not attend. Mr. Hank Vuori worked in the Arctic for some 30 years with Inco. He covered the area from Ungava through Victoria Island and over to Alaska. He was the first person to get wind of the Darnley Bay anomaly in 1955. Mr. Vuori is a mining engineer. John Dowsett was the Director of Exploration for Inco and worked throughout the Arctic. My experience in the Arctic includes Rankin Inlet, Chesterfield Inlet, King William Island, and so on.
I will leave with the committee a sketch which show some of the operations on the Arctic coast. The slides which I will present show the Rankin project, a new operation by Falconbridge, and other projects, including the one at Darnley Bay. There is also the project at Red Dog, which is run by Cominco Mines.
The settlement area comprises Holman, Sachs Harbour, Tuktoyaktuk, Aklavik, Inuvik and Paulatuk. The anomaly is located in that area. Before we embarked upon any exploration, we sought the opinions of the residents, because they had certain concerns. Some expressed concern about the caribou, some about the whales, and some about the Arctic char.
I have gone through the north, including Rankin Inlet, Fort McMurray, Yellowknife, Norman Wells, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, and I have met with people from Holman and Sachs Harbour, to explain our program. Our program includes an historical background illustrating what happened 80 years ago when there were natives in the Coppermine region. They wore skins for clothing, and their only tools were bones. They used human urine to bleach their clothes, and they used human droppings to make wax.
Another slide I have dates back to 1950 when I started working in the Arctic. It shows an igloo and a family. They lived off the land. They had very few resources apart from caribou. I took these pictures myself. One of my pictures depicts a caribou tent, and you can see the flies underneath. The natives skinned the tent and ate the flies' eggs.
However, things are changing and, as you can see from another slide, they have access to the occasional commercial item. You can see some flour and a can, but they continued to live off the land and not in communities.
My next slide shows the natives again, and you will see that they still wear skins for clothing. They may have telescopes, but they do not use them. The polar bears and caribou in that area are collared. All they need is a direction finder to locate them and they can track them on their skidoos.
My next slide depicts the first residence in Rankin Inlet. You can see the tent that my partner and I lived in when we staked Rankin Inlet.
The next slides show Chesterfield Inlet in 1950. The only people who lived there were the white people.
The following slides show the hospital at Hudson Bay, for which a windmill supplied the power; and the school. Today, that is a community of about 2,000 people.
Baker Lake is next.Again, the only people who lived there were white people. The natives lived off the land. This slide shows the airstrip built by the American army in 1942, during the war effort.
I have slides showing Holman in the early 1950s, and Holman today. Rankin Inlet, Chesterfield Inlet and Paulatuk are similar to Holman. People no longer live off the land. The next slide shows where we are working at Paulatuk.
Up until 50 years ago, the natives lived off the land. In my 48 years in the north, I have found that caribou are driven by wolves to travel in certain directions and they are seeking the first lichen after the snow has melted. When the flies come, they move further north. Calving can take place further south if it is an early winter. If it is a late winter, they calve in the north. Calving occurs in many places. The priest who has been living in Paulatuk for 42 years has never seen calving in the Paulatuk area. Dogs chase the caribou away, and the wolves. make the caribou move in a certain direction.
There are three major features of the Darnley Bay project. They are: accessibility, mineral potential, and the source of energy. The area is accessible by the Dempster highway, built by the Diefenbaker government. We have ocean transport facilities and commercial airstrips. One of the slogans I used to see up there was: "Road from igloo to igloo". We still have the infrastructure, but we no longer have igloos. We have commercial airstrips in Paulatuk, Tuktoyaktuk and Aklavik. As you can see from my next slide a, 28,000 tonne ore breaker can access the Eastern Arctic. It can operate in this area for about seven months a year.
We also have accessibility from Paulatuk, down the Mackenzie River, to a railhead. At least $1 billion worth of infrastructure leads to the north, but it does not serve any community It was built mainly because of the gas and oil in the Arctic. The greatest potential now is in Paulatuk.
On my next slide you can see the ocean route. Shipments are made to England and Europe and down through the Eastern United States. From Paulatuk, we can ship to Japan and China, as well as to the western coast of the United States. We also have barging from the railhead south to Hay River.
This slide shows Inuvik, where the Dempster highway is located, and the Mackenzie River delta. The Beaufort Sea is north from there. The government spent $16 billion on infrastructure in that area. In Inuvik, we have aircraft services, barging, catering, camp supplies, fuel equipment and trucking.
In Paulatuk, the federal government has spent $36 million on airstrips. My slides show both the old airstrip and the new one which is a 5,000-foot airstrip. Hercules aircraft can fly in there. There are two scheduled flights per week. Also within that area we have a nursing station, an RCMP detachment, a store, a school, a motel, and docking facilities.
This slide shows Paulatuk which has a population of 270 people, and approximately 35 per cent of them are young kids.
The next slide shows the docking facility near the Mackenzie River. That could be a deep-sea port in the future.
In the early days, the government decided to have a fuel supply there. When I worked in the Arctic, you had to plan to get your fuel oil about two years in advance. Now we can draw from off that fuel supply, as long as we fill it up with the first supply to come north.
They just put a $1-million extension on the school last year.
The next slide shows the hotel.
All in all, there is at least $1-billion worth of infrastructure there. Accessibility is extremely good.
We are looking for mineral potential, mainly nickel, copper, and platinum group elements.
I have been to the schools in Paulatuk and Inuvik because part of my job under the agreement is to explain to the communities what this is about. I explain to them that we know the centre of the earth is nothing but molten magma. It is a very heavy substance which contains nickel, copper, gold, and all the other elements.
Darnley Bay's theory is that a meteorite similar to that which landed in Sudbury hit the surface of the earth, penetrated the mantle, fractured everything it came in contact with, and forced the elements up. Those elements are now on the surface.
These basic sills that you see on this slide are important. When the magma gets in there, after a cooling period of about 200 years, the metals settle on the bottom. In the textbook example of Sudbury, a meteorite dented the surface of the earth, fractured the mantle, and the solutions rose. After 200 or 300 years of cooling, the metals have settled out on the bottom. Mining has been going on in Sudbury since 1885. That is the possibility we are looking at in Paulatuk.
In 1955, when my partner and I were looking at maps of the Northwest Territories, he noticed a magnetic anomaly. When he went up there in 1959 there were only young settlements. When he went up the Hornaday River and into the gorges he found these basic boulders. They are the same types of basic sills that you see in Sudbury. You also find native copper and sulphites in these gorges.
What runs though this area is a massive coal bed, and that is where Paulatuk gets its name. It means "black soot". That is where the whalers and the people we used to call "Eskimos" got their fuel.
In 1969, the Government of Canada took readings every eight miles throughout the Arctic. These readings were to test the intensity of the rock below, and to determine what was heaviest. At Paulatuk the readings were very high. They took about 1,000 readings, which told them that there was something extremely heavy in the ground. It is four times the strength of the whole Sudbury basin, which has produced $2.5 billion worth of metals a year, in the order of about $1.8 billion. In the Sudbury area, there are 21 producing mines around the perimeter. That is like dropping a big rock in a pool of water and the splash coming close to the surface. That was the first indication of the gravity anomaly.
The map I am showing you was not produced until 1991.
The government did a magnetic survey in 1973. Now, we know there is something very heavy in the ground, and we know there is something magnetic in the ground. It does not have the characteristics of an iron formation, but it is similar to what is seen in Sudbury. The findings in both areas are homogenous. There are no breakdowns, and no positive areas.
In 1969, the GSC staff came up here and mapped the area. This is what we call the "Precambrian shield", the oldest rocks in the north. In this area you have elements that are magnetic and heavy, and they are covered with young sediments. At that time we did not know how deep those young sediments were.
Our interest was piqued by the diamond discovery down here in the late 1980s, about 350 miles south of Darnley Bay.
In 1973, the oil companies arrived because an early report of the Geological Survey of Canada had stated that the high-gravity anomaly was caused by the formation being closer to the surface. The oil companies were looking for oil traps. They have done seismic surveys which show an inverted mushroom shape. They show the sills which are similar to those in the Sudbury basin. There is a fault in the area.
In 1993, the GSC sampled where these sills are exposed in the proposed park and last year we got permission to do that also. They found amounts of nickel, copper, platinum, gold, and silver in the sills, so the obvious source of those minerals is the anomaly. That is when the GSC gave a moderate to high rating for the anomaly to contain those metals. That is the highest rating they can give without having sampled the host rock or having drilled a hole in the ground.
We know we have something very heavy here. Usually, ore bodies have finger-type extensions but, at this stage, we do not know whether that is the case here.
If we were able to take samples in the area and found that the rocks were 1200 million years old, we would know they came from nearby. If they were 700 million years old we would know they came from another area. The purpose of sampling in the park is to try to establish where the formations originated.
Last year, we went up there with a state-of-the-art aircraft which had two magnetometers instead of one. In 1969, a standard survey was done from 1600 feet, and the measurements were four miles apart. This time, we flew at 450 feet above the surface, and we took measurements 800 meters apart. This program cost us about $800,000, as you have to fly over the whole area to map the size of the anomaly.
What we found was quite different from what was found on the last survey. It is not homogeneous. We found extremely interesting faulting.
You can see pipes which are within 20 metres of the surface. The survey shows us what is 3.3 kilometres below the surface and then and 1.1 kilometers below the surface. Many fingers are close to the surface. That is typical of how ore lies in Sudbury and other places.
There has an upheaval in the centre, and the whole formation has been pushed towards the surface. That is why the minerals are at a shallower depth. The seismic survey did not go beyond this. If it had, they would have found out earlier that there were minerals close to the surface.
We believe that we have four intrusives. I understand that people from Falconbridge have studied our tapes, and they say that we have seven intrusives. Our people tell us we have four, each one of which could have these upward spikes we are looking for.
Our survey showed pipes. We are looking for kimberlite pipes, because they carry diamonds. On Victoria Island they have drilled seven pipes, four of which are kimberlites. In Lac de Gras, they have spent $800 million putting in one pipe operation. We do not know whether we have kimberlites until we do our surface sampling.
We now have exclusive rights to the six original areas and the tail end of another one. The one in the park is by far the longest at about 25 miles. Another is about 15 miles long. These are the mineralized magnetic zones that we want to work on.
Early gravity readings which were about four miles apart indicate that there is something very heavy in the ground. We want to take gravity readings every 200 metres. We are looking for the association of the gravity readings with the magnetic readings.
Inco produces platinum, gold, silver, nickel and copper from its Sudbury mines. It is the largest nickel deposit in the world. The Darnley Bay geological survey does compare this to those operations. However, Sudbury is where the magnetics and the production are and production is where the gravity is. The mags are a lot smaller than the gravity. If you mixed a pail of water with oil and gas and let it settle, you would see it separate. Minerals do the same. The magnetics create certain horizons for the copper and nickel, and they settle in different areas.
Africa produces 70 per cent of the world's platinum.
We have enough heavy crude to supply Paulatuk for a number of years.
This is the strongest isolated anomaly in North America. We have exclusive rights to 1 million acres, very good infrastructure, and an excellent management team. My job is to find the depth and the shape of the deposits.
Mr. Allen: I have heard a lot about the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the requirement that resource companies enter into agreements to deal with land use, costs for work site inspection, employment, service and supply contracts, as well of education and training, wildlife compensation, and equity participation.
The 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement provides for environmental screening and for Inuvialuit permits, not only Crown permits, to authorize and control the nature of specific work phases. It helps to know who owns what in the area of the anomaly outside the park. There are just over 1 million acres of the anomaly available for exploration outside the park. Of that, under the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the Inuvialuit own the mineral rights to about 450,000 acres and the Crown has the mineral rights to the balance.
Prospecting permits for the area held by the Crown are issued by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under the Canada mining regulations. We formed a company, and in December of 1993, applied to DIAND for prospecting permits for the area of the anomaly outside the mineral rights owned by the Inuvialuit.
In February 1994, DIAND issued the permits. Later in 1994, the Inuvialuit told us about the proposed park. They asked us to relinquish the parts of our prospecting permits that were in the proposed park. We relinquished about 470,000 acres without compensation. Ms Cournoyea told you about that.
We then began negotiations with the Inuvialuit with several principles in mind. First, of the area of the anomaly outside the park, the Inuvialuit have about half, while we have prospecting permits for the balance. The nature of the anomaly lends itself to a single, comprehensive exploration program. Second, whether the mineral rights are owned by the Inuvialuit or the Crown, all of what is in the Inuvialuit settlement region is Inuvialuit land. The 1984 Inuvialuit agreement states that not only is their cooperation needed for each phase of exploration and development, but they are also entitled to meaningful opportunities to invest in long-term benefits that may occur, meaning equity benefits. Equity benefits are available through one or a combination of shares in the resource company; direct share cost property interests and royalty interests. Each form has its special features and advantages.
After meetings with the people of the Paulatuk community and lengthy negotiations with the Inuvialuit, we signed an agreement with them on October 6, 1995. The principle terms of this agreement are as follows: We effectively pooled our mineral rights to allow comprehensive exploration.
In the area where the Inuvialuit own the mineral rights, our company has exploration rights for 10 years, during which we can select specific targets for intensive exploration. In each selected target, we have 10 years from the time of selection to decide if there is economic potential. If so, we will be entitled to a mineral lease. We make cash payments, some of which we can pay in shares of the company, and we also pay an annual administration fee. We are required to carry out substantial exploration work.
The Inuvialuit will receive a 3 per cent net smelter return royalty from any production. In each of the intensive exploration targets, they also have the right to become a direct cost-sharing property participant or to receive an additional net smelter return royalty. They receive the cash and share payments and the annual administration fee.
In the area outside the Inuvialuit mineral rights, including in the area of the company`s prospecting permits, the Inuvialuit have a 2 per cent net smelter return royalty. In each of the targets selected for intensive exploration and development, they also have the right to become a direct cost-sharing property participant or receive an additional net smelter return royalty.
The company is to provide the Inuvialuit with the exploration results, and training, employment and business benefits. Under that agreement, the company has paid, and is in the course of paying currently, about $1.2 million in cash and about $1.2 million in company shares.
We have retained highly regarded consultants. I think you have material from Patterson, Grant and Watson. On their recommendation to improve the geophysical knowledge of the anomaly area outside the park, we carried out the 1997 airborne survey.
James Robertson and Dennis Prince from Falconbridge have told you what the results of that survey meant and how that led to their participation.
As required by our agreement, we also provided the Inuvialuit with the results. We did not undertake the survey in order to change the park boundary, but because it would improve knowledge of the part of the anomaly that is outside the park.
The Inuvialuit initiated the process to change the boundary. At their request, we have provided them with information and assistance. We are not signatories to the park agreement and we have no status under it. Obviously, we have a common interest with the Inuvialuit and we support them.
If the boundary is changed and the area becomes available, our arrangement with the Inuvialuit is that regardless of whether it is Inuvialuit land under the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement or Crown land, for the purposes of our agreement with them it will be treated as Inuvialuit land.
Our exploration program is directed to areas outside the park, although there has been some sampling in the park -- and Mr. La Prairie referred to that -- to determine magnetic properties, density, and age-dating. However, because of the results of the 1997 survey, this is no longer included. We could not carry out exploration in the park without permits, and they would not likely be forthcoming in any case.
We hope that this answers the issues about the company arising out of earlier hearings.
Leon La Prairie and I were involved in all the negotiations with the Inuvialuit leading up to our agreement with them, including meetings in Paulatuk with the elders. We came away with a sense of their profound respect and concern for their land and the preservation of their heritage. They are also concerned about the swift changes overtaking them as they move from a subsistence to a global economy. We had the privilege of talking with people who lived off the land before we southeners took an interest in it. As a lawyer, I received the impression that their tradition has not included our concept of private property. I have learned that traditions of property ownership can be profoundly different. The various structures set out in the 1984 final agreement speak to this, and I feel that we owe it to them to deal with them with all respect.
Senator Adams: Just as an aside, I believe there was a nickel mine in Rankin Inlet from 1954 to 1962 when it was closed.
Mr. Allen has been working with the Inuvialuit and their claims agreement, and I believe we should do the same in Nunavut.
Cumberland Resources has been drilling for diamonds in the Rankin Inlet area for the last eight years. People there are concerned about all the drilling going on in their community. In the last few years, we have learned that we must be concerned about protecting the caribou and the calving area.
Did your company have an exploration permit before the Inuvialuit settled their land claim or after?
Mr. Allen: The company has not done any exploration other than data gathering and carrying out the 1997 airborne survey, and some geophysical positioning this past winter. Everything has been subject to permits.
Senator Adams: Will the permit continue according to the Inuvialuit land claim? Is Parks Canada trying to force you out?
Mr. Ian Lawyer, Vice-President of Exploration, Darnley Bay Resources Limited: I think we should all be very clear that once a national park is established, any exploration and development is immediately extinguished. There was some misunderstanding last week, as I noted when I had the opportunity to sit in on these standing Senate hearings and the previous parliamentary hearings. Please do not misunderstand -- once the park is established, future exploration and development is extinguished for ever.
Mr. La Prairie: In the park area.
Mr. Lawyer: The other aspect is the review. Twenty per cent of the anomaly is within the park as it is now. We do not know where economically viable deposits will be found, whether within the 20 per cent or outside. We hope it will be the surrounding area, like Sudbury. As Dennis Prince of Falconbridge explained last week, it could be like Voisey's Bay, where the only economic deposit would lie in the park. It is important to know that.
Senator Adams, you referred to the area around Rankin Inlet where the Kaminak herd is located. There is no national park in that area. There is a specific protected area to protect the caribou during calving and movements of the herd. There are very strict regulations on carrying out mineral exploration in that area. That is a good example.
Senator Buchanan asked whether there other examples and other ways to do things outside the park to protect the caribou. That is one regulation established by the Northwest Territories government to protect caribou from mineral exploration at key times.
Senator Adams: Sometimes we have helicopters flying over in April and they have calving season starting in May; perhaps later in the west, perhaps earlier. We were concerned about regulating exploration to ensure the caribou are not disturbed in the calving season.
You spent approximately $800,000 for exploration in Darnley Bay.
Mr. Lawyer: Yes.
Senator Adams: Will you lose all your rights if the area becomes a park? How will you get your $800,000 back? We have 2 per cent for the interest of the Inuvialuit in mining shares.
Mr. Lawyer: Eighty per cent of the anomaly sits outside the park. The airborne survey covered the complete anomaly, and that cost roughly $600,000, plus reprocessing and working with our Toronto consultants. That raised the price to $800,000.
Work could still go ahead on 80 per cent of that anomaly. The park will not stop us from working outside the designated boundary.
Senator Adams: Do you have any interest in equipment in the park at this time? It is not easy to move the equipment, and at $3,000 an hour for a helicopter, it is not cheap. How will you recoup the money if you lose your interest in the land? Will Parks Canada pay you to get out of there?
Mr. Lawyer: The $800,000 was spent on the complete survey. Of that survey, roughly 20 per cent was carried out in the park, as permitted by the Government of the Northwest Territories. We considered continuing the work on the area outside the park. Obviously, if the boundary is moved, we would review that one large anomaly, as Mr. La Prairie showed, within the park. Right now it is a designated boundary. Until that is moved or changed, we would focus all of our money outside of that.
I remind you that when Darnley Bay relinquished their permits to the Inuvialuit, as requested, that area was roughly 470,000 acres. If it was reinstated, the area would be roughly 100,000 acres. Darnley Bay originally held 470,000 and that was relinquished. There will be no discussions on retrieving that. The Inuvialuit have requested a review on the boundary around the anomaly and that is roughly 100,000 acres.
The Chairman: I wish to clarify that point. I understood that the total acreage of the proposed park was 16,340 square kilometres, even though some of the boundaries have not been determined. Now you are saying to Senator Adams that the area that may be excluded amounts to 100,000 acres?
Mr. Lawyer: I am saying that originally Darnley Bay held permits within the park. If you recall the story from Mr. Allen, that was roughly 470,000 acres. Those were given up. The area involved in the request to move the boundary is approximately 100,000 acres, or roughly one fifth of the original land grant by the Government of the Northwest Territories to Darnley Bay.
The Inuvialuit are asking for the area to be part of the exploration zone. As partners of the Inuvialuit, we would like to see the boundary moved, as that makes sense for us. The area we are talking about is roughly 20 per cent of that originally relinquished by Darnley Bay.
Mr. La Prairie: The confusion is over the 2 per cent, which is the overall part.
The Chairman: I am not sure of the mathematics, but you are saying that the 100,000 acres amounts to 2 per cent of 16,340 square kilometres?
I do not think it does, but I am no mathematician. We will have someone else figure that out.
Senator Hays: I gather the 100,000 acres is the area covered by the anomaly that you are focusing on. Is that right?
Mr. La Prairie: That is correct.
Senator Hays: The larger area is that potentially available for exploration and given up by Darnley Bay at the request of the Inuvialuit. I wish to confirm your testimony that the additional work in 1997 was done on the clear understanding that Parks Canada had an agreement. In their letter granting permission, which I assume they now regret writing, they made it clear that their position on the park's boundary would be unchanged by anything that you might discover?
Mr. Lawyer: The wording was that an adjustment to the boundary is not foreseen at this time, or something to that effect.
Mr. Allen: We did not undertake that airborne survey for the purpose of changing the park boundary.
Senator Hays: I understand that. The letter states:
Darnley Bay should be aware that no boundary change to the designated national park is foreseen.
That is the comment to which you referred. How did you take that? Did you take that to mean they might make a change to this boundary, or you did not see it as being as firm as they did?
Mr. Lawyer: I was not involved with the company at that time, Senator Hays.
Mr. La Prairie: We did inform Parks Canada, the Department of Indian Affairs, and the Inuit land administration of our intention to fly over the area. Parks Canada initially said we could not fly over the park. The Department of Indian Affairs said we must fly at 1,000 feet. The federal Department of Transport said they had jurisdiction, and we could fly within 150 feet above and land only on emergency or for regular maintenance.
We did get in touch with all parties and got approval from the land administration, but not until we had permission from Transport Canada, which did have jurisdiction.
Senator Hays: That explanation makes it clear that this was envisaged purely as an opportunity to learn more about the geology of the area. If the geology or the survey proved up resources, you did not expect that disagreement to be reopened.
Mr. La Prairie: To find the volume of a lake, you must determine the depth in the centre and work from shore to shore. To measure an anomaly, the procedure is the same. You must overfly the zero points.
Senator Hays: Did you say that the formation in which you are interested is approximately 3.3 kilometres below the surface?
Mr. La Prairie: No. We know that some of the feeding sources are at 3.3 kilometres and that the lowest is at 1.1 kilometre, but there are many fingers. That is what makes the ore bodies. Some are within 20 meters to 50 meters of the surface, and some are 1,000 meters below the surface. We have to find out where the gravity is associated with the narrow ones. We know, from the early gravity survey, that there are a number of gravities associated with the shallow ones, but further work is required.
Senator Hays: My present impression is that there is an 80 per cent likelihood that the best potential mine site is outside the park, based simply on the statistical analysis that 80 per cent of the anomaly is outside the park. I had an earlier impression that the best site is in the park. Is there any reason to disbelieve that 80 per cent of it is likely to be outside the park area?
Mr. La Prairie: It could be anywhere.
Mr. Lawyer: Dennis Prince and James Robertson of Falconbridge gave an example last week. In Voisey's Bay, to date only one economic deposit has been found. In this scenario, that could easily be within the park. Yes, 80 per cent of the anomaly is outside the park, but we do not yet know, and will not know for a long time, where any economic deposits are located. So although we may say that it is 80 per cent outside the park, that does not necessarily mean that is where 80 per cent of the deposits will be. That is what we have to find out.
Senator Hays: Is this a Voisey's Bay situation?
Mr. Lawyer: We do not know for sure.
Senator Hays: Given that we do not know, the best guess we can make, based on the geology, is that you will most likely find a mine site outside of the park.
Mr. La Prairie: A recognized expert has prepared a report on the southern portion indicating that it is a mirror image of the bush fault in Africa. The IRC has that letter, and I believe a number of you have seen it.
That area could contain 10 mines. Part of it is in the area where we intend to drill. What happens if we find a mine there? Do we stop at the edge or the park, or do we do an underground operation?
Senator Hays: I am a bit puzzled by that, in that you are a kilometre down. You have to respect the park boundary.
Mr. La Prairie: We did not say it is a kilometre down. It could be quite close to the surface. In the south there are basic sills exposed that could bring up the fluids.
The Chairman: Mr. Allen, have you reviewed this agreement between the parties to establish the national park?
Mr. Allen: No, I have not.
The Chairman: We are being asked to put boundaries exhibited on a map into legislation when the majority of those boundaries were not agreed to by adjacent owners. The Paulatuk people have agreed, but there is no agreement with the other people who have an interest. As a lawyer, what do you think of such legislation?
Mr. Allen: As a lawyer, I have no experience interpreting this kind of situation. That is a comfortable answer. However, it seems to me to be an incomplete arrangement.
The Chairman: And probably unenforceable.
Mr. Allen: You probably know more about this than I, but any agreement is interpreted by the clause itself and its relation to the whole agreement and the surrounding circumstances. There is a discipline of interpretation that courts properly apply in that way. My simple comment is that it sounds incomplete.
The Chairman: I invite you to read it. You may come to the same conclusion I have, that it is one of the most poorly drafted agreements I have read in a long time. I would be interested in your view of it.
I have a question on this letter which received so much attention from Minister Mitchell, the February 1, 1995 letter from Darnley Bay to Mr. McNamee, the director of the wildlands program, on the relinquishing of the lands.
Mr. La Prairie states in the letter that he is pleased that the decision to relinquish by Darnley Bay has had a positive effect on the future of the proposed park.
I take it that in 1995 you did not have the information from the work costing $800,000 that Mr. La Prairie has shown us.
Mr. Allen: That is correct.
The Chairman: When you did, you then obviously reconsidered your position and the wisdom of this letter?
Mr. Allen: No, I do not think so. As Mr. La Prairie mentioned, we supported whatever the Inuvialuit felt was appropriate for them. They asked us to relinquish prospecting permits in the proposed park area. We have to work with them and we want to work with them, whether we like it or not. We do like it, as they are natural partners for us.
They asked us to please give up the prospecting permits because, as we understood it -- and I think it is still the case -- they wanted a park. To the extent that we have any status in this, we have supported them, and I think the letter is consistent with that.
In 1997, as recommended by the world-renowned experts that we had retained, we did an airborne magnetic survey. That information generated more information. We supplied that to the Inuvialuit and they asked for a change in the park boundary. We support them in that.
We have no difficulty with that letter, or with a letter from the department mentioned earlier saying that we are not to undertake the program for the purpose of changing the park. We did not undertake the program for that purpose.
The Chairman: Nor are you asking for the permits which you relinquished to be returned to you?
Mr. Allen: That is correct. We are not asking for anything back. We are supporting the Inuvialuit in their request for a change. That is why I said in my earlier remarks that, regardless of whether this is technically under Crown land or under Inuvialuit 7(1)(a) land, which is their mineral rights, if there is any return on economic opportunity or ownership of mineral rights, it will be treated as theirs.
I must say that that area would fall within the general concept of our concession agreement with them.
They have certain higher-order rights related to their mineral rights as opposed to our prospecting permit area.
The agreement is very complicated and I have only tried to summarize its highlights. We felt that it was consistent with their wishes to do what they proposed to us, and consistent with their wishes that if they are asking for some change in the boundary, then they should get the primary benefit.
Mr. La Prairie: I was at that meeting when the request was made. We were invited to Paulatuk to outline our program. When we got there, we found there were two planeloads of people who had come from the west. There was something in the order of 40 people. Rather than explain the program, this park issue was thrown right in front of us.
I am showing to you the federal government map indicating that the park was 8 miles further to the east, which was a mistake. I wrote to the Department of Indian Affairs and Parks Canada. They replied that that was not their understanding.
If what I thought was the park boundary had been confirmed, then we would have had the whole anomaly within our area. It was an error by the federal government on this map.
The Chairman: What is the date of that map?
Mr. La Prairie: It is 1994, by the Geological Survey. It might have been clumsy on our part not to have seen that. They had the A-1 lands about 8 miles further to the west. We were caught there, as we were not expecting that at all.
The Chairman: I have been inquiring, Mr. La Prairie, as you may have heard, as to the feasibility of this suggestion: If there is calving going on in this area, and if there is a mine, could the mine not be closed during that season? The wildlife biologist has told us that that would have a mitigating effect on any potential harm to the calving season. Would it be practical to have a regulation stipulating that between May 15 and June 15, if there were any calving, you would close the mine in order not to adversely affect the caribou?
Mr. Lawyer: Mr. Chairman, there are certain rules in place now covering that issue. We have two points to consider in that regard. One is the exploration phase. As John Nagy showed last week, caribou calving is critical between May 25 to June 25. In my previous work with another company in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region on Victoria Island, the community insisted that our planned early spring exploration program not be carried out at that time because of concerns regarding caribou calving. We agreed and worked out a time line by which we could do our work and not affect the calving. That can certainly be done for exploration. There are ways to work that out.
In the territories, many mines have been worked in the past. The most recent was described by Dennis Prince last week. He said that the caribou come right through the area, which is about the size of a large shopping centre, such as Bayshore here in Ottawa. That is the approximate size of the average mining complex. It covers a very small area of the region where the caribou are coming through. The herd numbers about 100,000, they are all over the place, and may not go into that one mine site.
There are ways to minimize any sort of impact on the herd. You would have to see what sort of development you have. The ones we are looking at are probably underground operations. If it were a surface operation, that would have more potential to bother the herd. There are ways to review everything.
Whether you can feasibly shut down the mine or keep everyone underground for a month is difficult to say. Fewer flights can be scheduled, for example, and things like that. The mining community in the Northwest Territories as a whole is working on that.
The Chairman: That does not give me much comfort. I was hoping you would say that you could do more than leave it to the future. Can you give me other ways in which you can mitigate the effect, or is that it?
Mr. Lawyer: There are many strict regulations concerning mining operations in the territories.
Senator Spivak: I detect a great deal of sensitivity on the part of your company, both now and in the past, in dealing with the local people. You also have taken note of environmental issues, and that is a great tribute to your company.
Based on the current geological information, you are hedging your predictions and I understand why. However, are you really saying it is possible that 80 per cent of the area might yield nothing? What are the possibilities that the only productive area would be that 20 per cent inside the park?
What about the drilling outside the park? I refer to the horizontal drilling, which is another matter.
Can you just clarify what you know about the hot spot in the park? I was not here for the testimony from Falconbridge. On your Web site, you suggest that the hot spot in the park is deeper, and that your drilling program is targeted to areas beyond the park.
Can you describe what your drilling program might be once you get started?
Mr. Lawyer: With regard to the so-called "hot spot", we understand from the magnetic survey that there is a deeper portion, which is the one Mr. La Prairie has referred to. We have near-surface anomalies that are modelling out roughly between 700 meters and a kilometre. Generally, they are shallower in the west and move progressively deeper to the east, and become much deeper to the north. This is all interpretation and modelling using different computer programs. You really need a drill hole to qualify that.
We outline our program in the prospectus as carrying out geophysical surveys on the ground over five of the areas. Using that information, we would select the best areas in which to drill. We already know that the one that is modelling out to be nearest the surface is the one closest to Paulatuk. We will be applying for permits to drill there initially because it is nearest the surface. It is the most westerly one.
However, if the geophysical surveys on the ground detect that there is a great conductor in one of the other anomalies, it would be silly not to chase that one first.
These are our current plans.
Senator Spivak: There is a possibility that there is nothing in these seven areas. What does your instinct tell you?
Mr. Lawyer: I have had great opportunities to study nickel deposits throughout the world. I have visited mines in Russia, China, Australia, and throughout Canada. There are not many great nickel deposits in the world.
Senator Spivak: Nickel is not worth much today.
Mr. Lawyer: Everything is in a cycles, we just do not know enough about them. Until about four years ago, there was no indication of the find at Voisey's Bay. Two prospectors looking for diamonds made that discovery, which shows you how little we know about nickel deposits.
Look at the track record. Most of the major nickel mining companies have not made major discoveries since 1962. As much as we know, we are still not successful at finding new deposits. One cannot say that the area within the designated park is not the best area of the anomaly because we do not know enough.
They are still making major discoveries in the Sudbury basin 90 years after they started. These are points made by Falconbridge, but it is a fact that many of the new discoveries are made by companies that are not even looking for nickel. The knowledge base is not strong.
There are many well-known copper deposits in Canada since we understand where to find those. However, nickel is elusive and has been fooling people for some time, and I suspect will continue to fool people. You cannot be certain.
Senator Spivak: What about drilling? If you find a little piece right outside the park, is there some way of horizontal drilling? What is the situation if you had to move out further, underneath the park?
Mr. Lawyer: Unfortunately, I am not familiar with regulations for mining under the surface into a park. I do not know if we have any examples of that. My guess would be that that is not allowed.
Senator Adams: If the mine goes ahead, how long do you think the protection will continue? Some mining companies are now subject to regulations saying, if you cannot mine within the next 20 years, forget about it.
Mr. Lawyer: Senator Adams, that is correct. We need to find something that has a 20-year mine life, that will go through two or three cycles. We do not even know what minerals we may find in this location, but we would want it to have a 20- to 25-year mine life, to hit a few cycles, and to have a sufficient time to produce revenue. That is the time line.
In that area of Canada, it must be something large and rich, otherwise it will not be developed.
Mr. La Prairie: I think you are looking at a world-class situation. You are looking at another Sudbury basin that could go another 100 years.
Senator Adams: Would you say the caribou have been disturbed?
Mr. La Prairie: My traditional knowledge of caribou goes back 48 years. They do not have maternity areas in the region. They can drop their calves at different areas, according to the weather and how the wolves move them. You will never find a traditional knowledge on calving because they calve all over the place.
Senator Butts: Can you tell me the date of the concession agreement between Darnley Bay and the Inuvialuit?
Mr. Allen: October 6, 1995.
Senator Butts: Therefore, it was one day after you had paid $60,000 to the Inuvialuit, right?
Mr. Allen: One day after?
Senator Butts: That was October 5, 1995.
Mr. Allen: That would be the first instalment on the payment under the agreement. We made the agreement, then began the payments. We did not make a payment to finalize the agreement.
Senator Butts: About a week after the boundary agreement, a payment of $200,000 was made.
Mr. Allen: I do not quite understand.
Senator Butts: The payment on July 10, 1996, was made two weeks after the boundaries agreement was signed; is that correct?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Senator Butts: You spent all this money after the boundaries were set. Can I presume that you will keep spending money when the boundaries are declared in the proposed legislation?
Mr. Allen: Under the October 1995 agreement, we have our obligations to pay the Inuvaluit certain amounts at certain times and to do certain quantities of work. Our intention is to honour those obligations whenever they fall due, regardless of anything else that has happened.
Senator Butts: Therefore it is the same as Falconbridge stated two weeks ago, that the continued work on the anomaly is not conditional upon changing the boundaries of the park. Do you say the same?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
The Chairman: I thank the three of you for being with us and providing us with such important information.
We have one further witness who has asked to appear the next time we meet. She is a representative of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
Senator Adams: Sometimes I get frustrated when people who do not come from the area and do not live there want to make a presentation.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, they have asked to appear and they have an excellent reputation for their concern for Canadian wildlife.
Senator Adams: I understand. If they are helping the people in the community, I understand. However, they are not really all that concerned about it. Anyway, it will give us some more time.
The Chairman: Does the committee wish to hear from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society?
Senator Spivak: Yes.
The Chairman: If so, with your permission, we will adjourn until our next hearing, at which time we will complete our work on this bill.
The committee adjourned.