Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 17, 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: We will continue our discussion on Bill C-38. A number of witnesses have appeared and expressed their support for this important piece of legislation, which creates a large park in the Western Arctic of the North. We have also had a number of witnesses tell us that they wish to see a portion of the park deleted. They wish to delete about 2.5 per cent of the approximately 16,000 square kilometres, in order to allow for further exploration within the area. The basis for that is that there seems to be the potential of a large mineral deposit, and there are also some anomalies within a portion of the park.
We have also heard testimony from organizations and individuals that are concerned by the possibility of deleting a portion of park, and who feel that it would create a negative precedent with respect to park boundaries. There is concern in this area that it is the calving ground for the Bluenose caribou that pass through the area.
This morning, two groups of witnesses will give us their points of view with respect to the park. The first group is the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society will follow them.
I am pleased to introduce Dr. Tony Andrews and Mr. David Comba. Please proceed.
Mr. Tony Andrews, Executive Director, Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada: We appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation to you today. We have been following the discussion before this committee with great interest, and we feel that we can offer some perspectives and information that may be of help to you. The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada -- or PDAC -- is a national trade association that supports the exploration and development sector of our industry. That sector is the front end of our industry, and is involved in areas such as exploration, investment, and development.
We have approximately 7,000 members. They are mostly in Canada, but about 20 per cent of them are also international. Mr. Comba and I are both geologists, which means that we have had the privilege of working across Canada and seeing much of its wilderness. Mr. Comba has 35 years of experience as a field geologist, and I have applied my profession in academia, industry and government.
Our presentation objective today will be to provide a national perspective on this issue. It seems that much of the discussion so far has been pretty focused, and we would like to give it a broader context. We will also inform you about industry practices, and provide you with some reassurances that there are effective tools that can be used to achieve both use and protection objectives.
After my introduction, Mr. Comba will talk about industry practices. He will focus on the process of exploration and discovery, and show you examples of sensitive practices.
I will talk to you about land use and protection and achieving that balance. As part of this introduction, it is important to articulate the industry position on two important issues.
First, the industry is committed to the conservation of biodiversity, wildlife protection and conservation of habitat. There is no debate here. Where we do get embroiled in significant debate, however, is around the question of the nature of the appropriate tools to meet those objectives. I will return to that later.
Second, whatever approach is taken, a key ingredient must be flexibility. The landscape of the world around us is dynamic, and is constantly changing. Our knowledge and understanding about the conservation of biodiversity is constantly evolving, as is our knowledge of geoscience, exploration and mineral deposits. Any land use management approach must be flexible in order to accommodate these changes. It does not make any sense to lower a rigid framework on such a dynamic landscape situation.
Mr. David Comba, Director, Issues Management, Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada: It is a privilege to be here. My career started in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in 1963. Between 1963 and 1968, I lived in both Port Radium, on Great Bear Lake, and Yellowknife, on Great Slave Lake. During that time, I participated, as a civilian volunteer, as a spotter for search and rescue missions. Many of those flights took me out over the Bluenose caribou. I am very familiar with these animals on their annual migrations, both in the spring and in the fall.
I will talk about the mining cycle of our industry. I have deliberately chosen to use a pyramid to portray it. At the start, when we are first deciding on where we will spend our money, we need to cover the largest possible area, namely, the base of the pyramid. Through our process of exploration, we narrow the area down, and focus in on those areas that seem to have the greatest potential for discoveries.
This initial process is very green. In fact, a lot of it does not involve any physical contact with the ground whatsoever. However, there is a point when we are fortunate enough to make a discovery, and we do start to have an impact on the environment. Ultimately, that discovery might lead to production.
If we make a discovery, and it goes on to become a mine, with production we have close-out plans that are a matter of statute and regulation. In the mining process, the area that we are involved in is very small relative to what we have access to at the start of the process.
First, we will look at area selection. This is something that Leon LaPrairie would have done in determining his involvement with Darnley Bay. He had personal knowledge of what had happened there in the 1950s with Inco.
Inco was very intrigued by the fact that ship compasses would swing wildly in Darnley Bay. When the early whaling ships were calling in there, the captains would notice distinct swings in the compass within the bay itself. This intrigued Inco geologists, and Mr. LaPrairie was part of that. He had some local traditional knowledge himself, and he also had access to assessment files. Exploration geologists use those a lot -- particularly the mineral resource assessments that you have heard about in this case.
Over time, as new technology is developed or our understanding of ore deposits grows, our views change. This has a direct impact, for example, on a mineral resource assessment that a few years ago might have had only moderate potential. All of a sudden, it has a much higher potential.
The Canadian government conducted airborne surveys. Some geochemical surveys and some prospecting were also done, primarily by Inco. The areas that we are covering here are in the neighbourhood of 10,000 square kilometres. No roads are required. Other than for prospecting, there is little activity on the ground.
Mr. LaPrairie liked the area. Our ability to look at the airborne surveys done by the government in 1964, and to get more out of those by processing that information in different ways, got him excited about going back into the area.
There was another critical factor involved here -- and this is certainly one of the reasons why Falconbridge is here. We all know that mining was undertaken in the Darnley Bay area for coal in the last century. It is only in the last 12 years that a Canadian geoscientist working out of the University of Toronto -- Dr. Naldrett -- was allowed to visit the Noril'sk deposits in Russian Siberia, which are the world's largest nickel deposits.
Dr. Naldrett noticed that one of the key things that made Noril'sk different from Sudbury or the Australian sites was the presence of coal seams. This is definitely one of the reasons that Darnley Bay must be looked at again. The geophysics that the government did with the gravity anomaly and the magnetic anomaly tells a geologist that something very big, very hot and very dense was coming up underneath Darnley Bay at one time. The presence of the coal is a special ingredient, and the combination of those hot rocks from below and the coal could have the potential for producing another Noril'sk.
Mr. LaPrairie went ahead and acquired ground. He interfaced with the community, and made it very clear what he wanted to do. He also listened to the community. In the process of taking his project forward, he definitely had observers from the conservation group for the caribou herd on his airborne flights. Before even starting his assessment work project, Mr. LaPrairie was involving the community.
The survey work that Darnley Bay Resources Limited undertook limited the area of interest even further. The area of interest is getting smaller, but no roads have been constructed, and there has been no significant impact on the ground. Mr. La Prairie has entered into agreements for utilizing the local work force to establish grids and assist with the prospecting. There will not be any trenching or stripping at Darnley Bay, because we know the target is well below the surface. There will be core drilling, however.
This overhead is a summary of what you have seen from Falconbridge. The red circle is the outline of the gravity anomaly. The green area represents the outline of an airborne magnetic survey. In combination, these are the two things that caused the wide declinations in the swinging of the compasses here with the whaling ships.
Paulatuk means "black soot." It is named after the coal horizons that occur in this area. Mining has actually had a presence here for some period of time. The 1964 government survey indicated that this was the magnetic anomaly, but that it was very amorphous. That is to say, there were no details in it. Mr. LaPrairie's survey has allowed people to pick out certain specific areas that they want to follow up on. In total there are eight, but two of them are outside Mr. LaPrairie's permit areas, and they are under water. There are six on land, and one of these is in the park.
Falconbridge will go into Darnley Bay and drill the on-land anomalies, but they are already using much less than the area covered under their permit. We all know that, in this business, you do not find a mine in every drill hole. In fact, 90 per cent of all exploration work worldwide ends after this first phase of core drilling.
In the event of a discovery in one of the anomalies that have been picked up by the detailed airborne work, this would be the next part of the process. It is quite likely that a tote road would be built to one of those fives sites -- or six sites, if the park site is taken out of the park. The road would be built there, and more work involving the community would occur. The community would actually be carrying out much of the work.
In Canada today, you cannot get a permit to do anything -- even to take a bulk sample -- without a closure plan and a posting of financial assurance. There is a period of sampling and, because this feature is beneath the surface, all the sampling would be done from underground. This leads into various health and safety regulations as well as environmental matters.
If we are lucky enough to find a mine there, and if it is similar to Noril'sk, it could still be in production 100 or 200 years from now. If it is a deposit such as Voisey's Bay, production might occur over anywhere from 15 to 20 years.
In this period of development, the community experiences real stability and growth. There are also many opportunities for training which can be used elsewhere -- even outside the industry -- and a new infrastructure is built. These are some of the things that we must do so that people can work safely in a mine environment, and can monitor the environment itself.
This ongoing reclamation process works out to be cheaper on the bottom line. The remedial action is started, and is continued consecutively through the mining cycle. The amount of land that is impacted is constantly being reduced.
At some point in time, whatever mine is found there will close. There are very set procedures for doing this. A closure plan must be filed when the mine opens. The community is involved, because it will most likely be undertaking the monitoring program, and working with the site rehabilitation. If it is decided that the roads are not wanted in those areas any more, the roads disappear.
We have essentially gone through the mining cycle from area selection and land acquisition. This is where this project stands at the present time. The land has been acquired. Some airborne surveys have been done, and have reduced the area of interest down to six anomalies. At some point, Falconbridge will go ahead and do some diamond drilling. Hopefully, one of those anomalies will result in the discovery of a mine, and the process will go through to completion.
Mr. Andrews: As to land use, protection, and achieving balance, there are two significant underlying questions that have direct applications to the issue being debated here. First, does use and protection have to be considered as an either/or decision? From the committee transcripts that I have read, it seems that some people here believe that to be the case. Second, would unacceptable risks be associated with adjusting the proposed boundary of the candidate park, as suggested by the Inuvialuit?
To deal with the first question, we must realize that there is a significant array of tools that can be used to achieve conservation and protection objectives. In 1995, the Canadian government released a biodiversity strategy. Canada is very proud of the fact that they were one of the first countries to respond to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity with a document. In order to develop that document, the federal government worked with provincial and territorial jurisdictions and with many interested groups across Canada.
This excerpt taken directly from the table of contents of the Canadian biodiversity strategy effectively illustrates the significant array of tools that can be employed for achieving parallel goals of protection and use. Note that the protected areas or parks -- and I use those terms synonymously -- comprise only one line item in this substantial list. There has, however, been a real emphasis on the use of this tool at the expense of other types of tools.
Given the large array of tools at our disposal, how do we most effectively employ them? Presumably, we first outline our desired objectives on the landscape, and then choose the most effective tools to achieve them.
This is a very simple illustration of the spectrum of possible objectives on the landscape, and the tools we might select to achieve them. On the right-hand side of this spectrum is 100 per cent use. On the left-hand side is 100 per cent protection. As you proceed from right to left, you increase the level and priority of protection.
On the right-hand side, I have defined a field called "controlled development." This is a field where use is a priority, and regulations are the main protection tool. Examples of activities in this field would be agriculture, urban development or industrial development. It is appropriately a narrow field, because we do not want this kind of development spreading extensively across the landscape.
At the left-hand side is the preservation field, where protection is a priority. This is the field of either/or decisions, and it is a field where preservation is a priority. Again, this field is appropriately narrow, because we do not want large areas of preservation that exclude other types of values.
Finally, in the centre, we have a broad field where protection and use are common objectives. As we have seen, there is a broad range of tools at our disposal here. It is possible to position ourselves quite specifically anywhere in this field in order to achieve the objectives between protection and use, depending on the specific objectives.
If our priority were to protect a combination of values -- for instance, caribou, the caribou habitat, the landscape, and social and economic benefits -- we would very definitely want to be in this field. Imagine that we wanted to protect the caribou specifically above all other particular values. We would take into consideration the variability of their movements, and we would want a flexible instrument, but perhaps one with some more priority with respect to protection. We would still want to be in this field, but perhaps up towards the left-hand side for a higher level of protection.
The point of this illustration is that, in the majority of cases, protection and use are not mutually exclusive. It does need to be treated as an either/or decision.
It is an either/or decision in the preservation field. There are some cases where you have a unique and exceptional value, and you will need to choose a tool like a park or a protected area. It goes without saying, however, that we must be very careful in selecting this particular tool, because by definition it pre-empts other values in perpetuity. It is incumbent on government to conduct due diligence to ensure that we have all the information we need before using this type of tool, and to conduct an assessment of the social, environmental and economic impacts of using such a tool.
The second question posed dealt with whether there are unacceptable risks in changing the proposed boundary of the candidate park, as has been proposed by the Inuvialuit. In other words, if the boundary is adjusted, will that small area -- and any caribou that use it -- suddenly be unprotected? Of course they will not. In fact, the caribou would still enjoy a high level of protection under the existing regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories.
I wish to give you a snapshot of what that regulatory regime looks like. Canada is a world leader in exploration and mining. Along with that, we have the highest regulatory standards in the world. In the Northwest Territories the regulatory regime falls under three separate jurisdictions; the Government of the Northwest Territories, the federal government and, more recently, native lands.
The next few slides look at the regulatory regime under the GNWT and the federal government. They are organized by the four main stages in the mining cycle; preliminary exploration, advanced exploration, development and production, and finally closure.
We start with the preliminary exploration phase. This is a list of the statutes and regulations by title only. We have 23 statutes and regulations under the GNWT column, and 17 under the federal column. This is only for the first phase of preliminary exploration. All of these exert control and limitations on the preliminary exploration stage.
Next we have advanced exploration. Again, we have a list of statutes and regulatory titles only. Now we have 32 under the GNWT, and 22 under the federal column. This is the development and production stage, and the list grows larger. Finally, we have closure.
Mr. Chairman, this regulatory regime is so complex that my organization has published a guideline to help our members find their way through this maze, and to help them to comply with the regulations. That document is approximately 200 pages long, and we must update it each year because things change constantly. It contains no actual legislation; it simply provides guidelines for dealing with the legislation.
In addition to all this, we have a new component to the regulatory regime under native lands. Land claim agreements have given rise to settlement and agreement acts, and they in turn have given rise to institutions and procedures. An example of this under the Inuvialuit agreement is the environmental impact screening process. This review process will include local wildlife boards and trappers' and hunters' associations, and it is in addition to the Canadian environmental assessment screening process.
The main point is that the mining industry is very highly regulated, and the regulations themselves provide a high level of protection on all Crown lands. If a decision is made to make a small adjustment to the park, as suggested by the Inuvialuit, a high level of protection will still exist. I would suggest, in fact, that there is probably a higher degree of risk associated with designating a very large park in this area on the basis of insufficient information and assessment.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by summarizing the key points that we have tried to make here today. Mining is adaptable and sensitive. The exploration and mining industry is capable of working with a very small footprint, and flexibility is the key. We all need protection measures that are adaptable to constantly changing information and knowledge, and regulations do provide protection. In a sense, Crown lands are essentially protected areas. The decision does not need to be an either/or decision. A balance between use and protection can be achieved by employing existing tools.
A park is forever and, by definition, it pre-empts other values in perpetuity. If the parties concerned are convinced that it is appropriate to use a preservation tool in this case, as opposed to a conservation tool, we must ensure that all the information has been considered. We must ensure that a proper assessment of the social, environmental and economic impacts of the use of this tool have been considered.
Mr. Comba: I have here an aerial view of the Contact Lake Gold Mine in the Lac La Ronge Provincial Park of northern Saskatchewan. The road access into the park is almost invisible because the road was kept narrow. The road also follows the local contours so, as a result, it takes much longer than it would normally take to get to the site. By following the shape of the land, it is barely visible even from the air.
This is part of a canoe route from La Ronge up to Otter Lake at the north end of the park, and that was one of the main values to be protected here. Everything here is within La Ronge Provincial Park. Canoes cross here, so they did not want this mine site to be visible from the lake. They also did not wish to hear noise from the mining activities.
One of the keys was limiting the access. The road to the park takes off just outside the west boundary of the park. It is not only gated but, very clearly, anyone using that road has no access to the waterway system. That was part of the permit process with the government.
The size of the road itself was kept to the width of a grader. It is not ditched. The road and the mine are located in a stand of over-mature Jack pine. These people worked very closely with local aboriginal groups, and yesterday I had a chance to talk to Harry Cook, the grand chief of the local band. Here you can see a sign along the road, which advises people that there are traplines in the area.
This is the centre of the main ore body at Contact Lake, which was the site of a very intensive drilling program in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These are the trees growing on very sparse soil. These are bedrock knobs occurring all through here. The rocks are lichen and moss covered, but there is very little soil in here to support any trees. The amazing aspect of this is that there is no damage; no bulldozer tracks scar the rocks, and the trees have not been levelled by heavy equipment.
They did it in the wintertime when the snow cover was thickest, so the equipment did not come in contact with the ground. When the snow melted, the evidence of the heavy equipment disappeared with it. The contractor was also rewarded on the basis of how few trees they hit with the heavy equipment.
When we searched in this area, we were looking for this stake, which denoted one of the holes that was drilled on that particular site.
The real achievement here is the mill. This slide shows a man door. This heavy equipment door is about two stories high. What you are looking at here is a building similar in size to a four-storey apartment building. What is remarkable about it is most of the equipment inside is buried underground. If this building had been built from ground level, it would have been eight to 10 storeys high. By putting at least half of it underground, they reduced the equipment noise that comes out of the mill, and more importantly, they reduced the visibility. If you are canoeing on the lake, you cannot see the building.
This building and all the equipment in it will be recycled. It is going to Red Lake, Ontario for another mine. All of this material here and some of the waste rock dumps from the mine will fill that hole.
The next slide shows the interior of the mill. When Dr. Andrews and I visited there in September, the mill was shut down. However, here you can see that much of the building is carved out of the living rock. You can see the blast patterns on the rock. Instead of having a concrete wall, you are up against living rock.
This is a very large mill. This light area at the back is not a door out to daylight. It is another part of the mill that happened to have a significant amount of lighting in it.
The purpose of this ground placement was to ensure that canoeists would not see the mine. The only thing that is visible from this operation is there for safety purposes. There is a dock down here with fire pumps in case of fire. That is the only visual impact of the operation.
This next slide shows the Lupin Mine in the Northwest Territories, which would be southeast of Darnley Bay.
This slide shows the Echo Bay Mines private jet coming in on the airstrip with caribou in the foreground.
This slide shows caribou wandering around the Lupin Mine site. The Lupin Mine is an underground mine.
The next slide shows caribou asleep by one of the fuel storage tanks.
My last slide shows a herd of muskox in the foreground, with the Lupin underground mine in the background.
That completes my presentation. Thank you.
Senator Taylor: As a geologist, would you know what the age of that coal is? Is that Cretaceous coal?
Mr. Comba: Senator, I believe you are from Alberta. I was born and raised in Calgary, but I have worked in the hard rock business for my entire career. I am not sure what the age of the coal is. I suspect it is similar to the deposits in Alberta, which might be somewhat older than Cretaceous.
Ian Lawyer tells me that it is Cretaceous.
Senator Taylor: I am curious as to whether there is any altering of the coal and the fixed carbon because of the heat coming up from the nickel ore. Is that used as a prospecting tool?
Mr. Comba: This is very early on in this exploration process. The types of things that ought to be done include investigating the changes on those coal horizons.
Senator Taylor: Has anyone done an archaeological study in this area? This would seem to be a natural setting, not only whalers, but also for aboriginal people's settlements. Has an archaeological survey done along the river and the bay?
Mr. Comba: I have no direct knowledge of this site. I am not a consultant to -- or a director of -- Darnley Bay.
Senator Taylor: Have any electromagnetic surveys of the ground been conducted?
Mr. Comba: That has not been done yet. However, that would be a logical thing for Falconbridge to do. A representative from Falconbridge did negotiate with the local community, and they said that they would participate in the setting out of those grids, and assist in those ground surveys. That is one way to fine-tune what has been derived from the airborne work.
Senator Taylor: You said that 90 per cent of the holes you drill on anomalies at this stage of the game would be non-productive. In other words, there is only one chance in 10 that these anomalies would have an ore body.
Mr. Comba: The point I was making was that, in a project, 90 per cent of the projects would fall off the table at this time. It is not as if one hole in 10 is a discovery. I wish that were the case.
I have drilled thousands of holes. I have been fortunate enough to be on discovery teams 11 times. So far, however, only five of those deposits have gone on to make mines.
Senator Taylor: At best, then, the anomaly within the park has only one chance in 10 of being productive.
Mr. Comba: That is correct. What is really needed here is flexibility. There is no way of knowing in advance which one of those anomalies on the land side will support a mine -- if indeed any of them will support a mine.
Falconbridge is pursuing a geological model, and they must take this into account. A company that size cannot afford to have afford to have anything slip out from between its fingers. They must be involved in this project. At this point in time, no one can see any further into the ground than you or I can. We do not know which one of those anomalies will be the right one, if any.
Mr. Andrews: The archaeological point that the senator raised was a good one. If we are in a sensitive area anywhere in Canada where there could be archaeological sites, surveys must be done before any significant work is done. That was certainly the case in Labrador, for instance, during the staking rush that followed the discovery of Voisey's Bay. Companies could not get a permit to do exploration until an archaeological survey had been conducted.
Senator Taylor: That is one of the reasons I was surprised that a survey had not been done here. I am a former Arctic geologist, and I know that this would be a natural place to conduct such a survey.
Senator Adams: We met previously in Yellowknife. I have seen a lot of diamond drilling. You are talking about core drilling. You showed me earlier how it worked in the park in Saskatchewan. Can you give me an idea as to how much environmental damage there might be if we decided to drill for ore in the future?
I have seen some of the operations in Rankin. You are talking about operations in wintertime. Most of them do operate at that time. People are concerned about the caribou and other matters. committee members are concerned about the caribou. I have seen the caribou at airports where the planes are landing.
Mr. Comba: Senator, there are two parts to this question. It would be not unreasonable at all to ask the companies not to drill during the calving period.
As the slide of the Contact Lake area of Lac La Ronge Provincial Park showed, there was little evidence at all of the advanced drilling program that had gone on there. They had deliberately done the operation in the late winter. There is no reason why that type of thing could not be scheduled before the caribou came, but while there was still a lot of snow cover. Quite often, it is most safe to move heavy equipment around during the winter, because then you can cross bodies of water.
In our industry -- and in many parts of northern Canada -- it is best to undertake the actual drilling program in the winter. By doing so, you could surmount the problem of the caribou coming in the spring, and of the calving season. Drilling work would be prohibited during that time period. There should be no environmental impact from this type of work.
Senator Adams: We used to have an exploration company in the Rankin Inlet area, and it usually stopped its activities during the calving season. I do not know why Parks Canada was concerned about that area in terms of the future for the people in the community. You have visited communities in the Paulatuk area. Can you give me an idea of how many people there could take advantage of employment opportunities? The Inuvialuit have settled a land claim, and the people in the community do not have jobs. Even if this becomes a park, that is my concern.
Is the community more important, or are the caribou more important? The caribou move anywhere they want to move. Are you telling me that in 20 years the calving season will still occur in the same area? It might be somewhere else.
Mr. Comba: Falconbridge has a good track record with the Raglan agreement in northern Ungava. Someone from Falconbridge should really talk about this, because they would know the employment levels. Significant employment contracts are being negotiated with the various communities, however.
I am a director of a junior company that has property immediately to the east of Falconbridge in Ungava. This summer, we worked out of an aboriginal community on the coast. That is just building up the trust that we want. As well, they were able to provide most of the services that we needed. It actually made sense for us to deal with the local community, and stage out by helicopter every day to our site, which is just east of the Raglan property.
Senator Adams: Can you tell me how long it would take to do the exploration? Can you give me an estimate? Would it be two months or one year?
Mr. Comba: It would not be continuous. When you are drilling, you only have small tubes of rock with which to work. It is very difficult to try to put what that ore deposit looks like together in three dimensions. In order to avoid wasting a lot of money, and drilling what we call "dumb holes," you usually have a staged approach. You drill so many holes, and then you go back and look at them. You determine that which direction it appears to be going in, and you follow that in the next campaign. These things normally take a number of years.
In the case of the Raglan project, it has taken Falconbridge over 30 years. It was not until the early 1990s, after Falconbridge had learned from observing deposits in Australia, Sudbury and Noril'sk, that they really started to get a good handle on what was going on at Raglan. There was a very intensive period. The mine is now in production. This summer, Falconbridge had eight drills working on the property. It is an ongoing process.
From the time the discovery hole is drilled to the time we are permitted to actually start with the mine, you are probably looking at eight to ten years.
Senator Adams: You mentioned that you do not need a road to go in there, if the ore is far enough down.
Mr. Comba: Before a drive is put underneath the park, you would want to have the mining rights. It would be best to exclude this area from the park.
There are certainly examples in Alberta where they wanted values on the surface to be protected. The oil companies have the ability to drill holes at an angle. The holes go down vertically for a while, and then they go off horizontally. They can actually extract oil and gas from underneath a site where they do not want any surface disturbance whatsoever. They come at it from the side.
In mining, the ramps can go off to one side underground so as not to disturb something that is sitting directly on top of the deposit. The ability to do that is there. This is just speculation at this time, however, because no one has found a deposit yet.
Senator Adams: We met ranchers in the area where that exploration is going on in Alberta. We met with them four or five years ago.
If Falconbridge does not get the park area excluded, do you have a future there? Will it open mining in another area?
Mr. Comba: I think Falconbridge would stay and test the other areas. In talking with Falconbridge people, it looks like the anomaly that is in the park is the shallowest one. That would be the logical one to test first.
I am not a Falconbridge employee, but I think they would definitely stay and test some of the other anomalies that are outside the park.
In our business, it is an old truism that you always go for the easiest thing first. It is a difficult business at any time, one with very high risks, so we should always try to go after the shallow anomalies first.
Senator Butts: When did your association become involved in this issue?
Mr. Andrews: We have been aware of this candidate park for quite some time, and we have been following it with interest. It has a long history of development. However, we did not become directly involved in the discussions around it until recently, resulting in our appearance today.
Senator Butts: Why did you get involved?
Mr. Andrews: We feel that protection and use can be common objectives, as opposed to an either/or situation. The decision made here has implications for our industry as a whole, and for Canada as an investment climate.
Our business is very competitive, senator. The competitive part of it is our ability to attract investment. If Canada is seen worldwide to be making unwise decisions in terms of the use of renewable and non-renewable resources, it harms our ability to compete for investment.
Senator Butts: I have been studying your paper on total landscape management. You talk about the protected areas or the parks "as exclusive areas." The next part of your paper talks about what you call "floating reserves," where the land looks like it could be mined, then left, mined again, or rehabilitated. That land is floating, as I understand it.
Mr. Andrews: We are excited about the concept of total landscape management. It is an example of how knowledge is constantly growing and changing. We see it as an approach that has a good chance of achieving the environmental objectives on the landscape -- in particular, the conservation of biodiversity -- while at the same time avoiding conflict.
New evidence strongly indicates that the use of parks and protected areas is not an effective way to achieve the conservation of biodiversity. Our industry is committed to the conservation of biodiversity, but we want to know that the tools we are using will be effective in achieving that objective.
Total landscape management involves the total landscape, where all activities are managed subservient to the primary goal of the conservation of biodiversity. We feel this tool has a lot of logic to it, and there is a chance that these objectives can be achieved.
Senator Butts: We are only interested in this piece of park, so I will try again.
Are you saying -- or does your organization believe -- that mineral development could occur within all national parks?
Mr. Andrews: I am not saying that. I am saying there are many instances where one does not have to use a preservation tool to achieve the objectives on the landscape, but one can use conservation and stewardship tools to effectively achieve both use and protection objectives. We feel this is a likely case in this situation.
Senator Butts: Is it likely that you would have a floating reserve in Tuktut Nogait park?
Mr. Andrews: It is hard for me to say, senator.
Senator Butts: You are just willing to.
Mr. Andrews: The only way to approach these situations is to first look at the objectives you want to achieve on the landscape, then pick your tools. Our concern is that there are many examples in Canada where the generation of a park has been the objective, as opposed to being simply a tool for achieving an objective.
Senator Butts: The history of this park does not bear that out. The people who live there, and who are concerned about the area, asked for this park. They signed an agreement for the park after six or seven years of work.
Senator Adams: Not on the boundaries.
Mr. Andrews: I have no knowledge of where this discussion began with the Inuvialuit. If you say that, I accept it.
The number one objective of the park is the protection of the caribou and of their habitat. I wonder about the use of a fixed tool to achieve an objective that is dynamic. There is no guarantee that the caribou will always come back to that particular area to calve, and that concerns me.
The second objective is to create a representative, protected area in that region, but the objective does not say why they want a representative, protected area in that region. What is the objective there?
Senator Butts: There is no guarantee that the caribou will come back, but neither is there a guarantee that you will get all your minerals there.
Mr. Andrews: That is exactly right. This is why we emphasize that flexibility is the key. Whatever approach you take through protection and use, it must be flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions. As soon as you create a preservation tool like a park or a protected area, you narrowly limit all your options in perpetuity.
Senator Hays: Thank you for your presentation. It has been very good in terms of the comfort levels you can provide, and how mining development would proceed. However, we are talking about an agreement on a park boundary that the parks are determined to maintain, and that other stakeholders are determined to see renegotiated or abandoned. In fairness, I think they are looking for a renegotiation.
Once park boundaries are in place and a park is in place, your association members obviously do not expect to do any mining there. I think that is clear from what you are saying. In terms of your interest, if there is mineral potential, in this competitive mining world in which we live, your job is to see the highest and best opportunity to develop that no matter what. I am not trying to portray you as unwise or unfair. You represent a point of view that will always say that. Am I not right?
Mr. Andrews: We do represent the interests of our members, who are the exploration and development community. However, we would be very unwise if we promoted our activity no matter what -- we cannot, and we do not.
We support protection. As I said before, the debate we get into is not about the value of biodiversity conservation, but about what tools we use to achieve that objective.
Senator Hays: What, then, is the association's position on parks, and the completion of Canada's objective of having an expanded network of parks?
Mr. Andrews: We believe that parks are a legitimate tool to use in certain circumstances, but we must recognize that they are a preservation tool, not just a conservation tool or a protection tool. We recognize that there are circumstances where we must use that tool. There are unique and exceptional places that no one wishes to touch. However, we also feel that this preservation tool has probably been overused in Canada, or used inappropriately.
Where a conservation or protection tool might have been quite appropriate, a preservation tool has been used instead. This creates an enormous amount of conflict, and basically takes out all the other values that might be desirable on that particular landscape. That, in a sense, is our position, senator.
Senator Hays: It is a good answer, I am sure. It is ambiguous enough to show your support for the idea of the completion of the park system, but not for unwise decisions in doing so. You characterize this decision that way.
You hinted that this anomaly, is the one most likely to produce a mine by saying that it is the most shallow. I am not sure that that is what we heard earlier. My impression is that there is no more likelihood of finding a mine here than there is in any of the other places.
Can you clarify that? You gave the impression that this is the shallowest site, and the best site. You said you would always go to the easiest site first, and you focused immediately on the area within the park. On what do you base that conclusion? I do not believe I heard that from Falconbridge, for instance.
Mr. Comba: I was not present at the prior hearings, senator, so I cannot comment on that. Perhaps Ian Lawyer, vice-president of Darnley Bay Resources, could respond to that.
I have talked to Falconbridge people in Toronto about this as a director of other junior companies. I am actually working with Falconbridge in Zimbabwe now. Some of the people involved there are also involved with Darnley Bay.
A very sophisticated mathematical formula is used here. A very eccentric mathematician who works out of the basement of his home in Perth, Australia, actually crunches these numbers on the airborne surveys. I have had a little experience with this, but I really do not understand how the process works, although what these things mean has come up in conversations with the Falconbridge people. I have seen similar number crunching done for the anomalies around Sudbury, which reveal structures that none of us really know or understand.
In the normal course of our conversations, it came out that the Falconbridge people think the entire Darnley Bay structure is essentially dipping deeper as you go towards the sea. That means that the anomaly in the park is the one that would be most shallow. These are all based, though, on very esoteric calculations, and that is why, ultimately, someone must go in and drill.
Senator Hays: It is at an early stage, but you have answered my question. The slope of the anomaly is to the north.
Mr. Comba: That is correct.
Senator Hays: You say this is an esoteric calculation, so you would not bet a lot of money on it?
I have heard from most witnesses that they do not know where the best prospects would be. Is it fair to characterize your testimony the same way?
Mr. Comba: Yes, this is a very early stage, but the prize is huge.
Senator Hays: I am quite prepared to rely on the record in terms of what Mr. Lawyer said earlier on about the Falconbridge's activities.
Senator Gustafson: Given the fact that the area of concern here within the park boundaries is about 2.5 per cent, is it possible to enlarge the boundaries in other areas that would not be directly involved with the mining project here? If it only involves 2.5 per cent, surely reason could prevail and you could extend the boundaries a little further one way or the other, and still have the same area.
Mr. Andrews: You are suggesting that if they adjust the boundary on the western side for this exploration endeavour, they could compensate on some other part of the boundary. This has been done in other cases, and it certainly makes sense to the mining industry as one alternative.
Senator Gustafson: The other main consideration here would seem to be the ability of the native people to have jobs and a reasonable standard of living in a difficult area of the country.
For 10 years I represented the area containing the grassland parks in southern Saskatchewan. Sometimes big government can be very unreasonable in terms of where cattle can graze, and where they cannot. The Rafferty Dam situation in southern Saskatchewan also fell within the area that I served. Sometimes government comes to ridiculous conclusions that affect the population there, and sometimes there is a lot of waste.
My concern here is whether we are giving the native people the consideration that is due to them. There are alternatives available here in a park. The witnesses who have appeared here have basically said that once park boundaries are designed and laid out, very rigid regulations would apply from there on. It would seem that accommodation would just be the reasonable thing here in this case. It is not asking for much -- only a 2.5 per cent change in the boundary.
The other question on my mind should perhaps be addressed to the next group of witnesses, because it involves the whole issue of land claims. You have indicated some concern about that, too.
Mr. Andrews: Senator, I think you are absolutely right. There is great expectation from aboriginal peoples, especially in the North, that the success of the mining industry will help them achieve a higher standard of living. It also must be part of the formula whereby the territories go through devolution and become more independent. The mining industry is willing to take on that role, of course, but we also recognize that it must be done in a balanced way.
Senator Gustafson: As an example, many people said there would never be any water in the Rafferty Dam at Estevan. Today there is 51 feet of water there. People are coming from all over the country to fish. It is one of the very successful projects in the whole province of Saskatchewan. In fact, now it is attracting too many Americans, and some of the local fishermen are concerned. It is just an example of doing the right thing. In this situation, too, small accommodations could be made that would be positive for the native people, and also for the park. It is just a reasonable accommodation.
Senator Fairbairn: You mentioned that the current assessment, the aerial exploration, and the calculations are esoteric to a degree, and that it is very difficult to gauge where the best opportunities might lie.
When we are talking about development and opportunities for employment, is there not a resolve and an intention to look into the area outside the park boundary that is currently on our maps? Is there an intention to proceed with exploration in those other areas?
I believe you used the phrase "big prize." The question I have is, if the prize is there, will they continue to go in -- park or no park -- with obvious care and precautions to try to develop those other parts of the anomaly?
Mr. Comba: I am sorry, senator, I thought I made it quite clear that Falconbridge, to the best of my knowledge, intends to go ahead and explore outside the park. I am not a shareholder but, from a Falconbridge shareholder's point of view, it would be regrettable if they do this work and they do find out that this thing really dips to the north.They have done all of this work outside of the park, and they must be concerned that the prize will allude them by becoming part of the park.
Senator Fairbairn: However, they intend to carry on?
Mr. Comba: I believe they will definitely go ahead. This structure is just too big for them to ignore. It has all the ingredients that we associate with Noril'sk. I do not see how they could justify not going ahead.
Mr. Andrews: That is the nature of our business. An example of a situation like this was the discovery, in 1980, of a major goldfield in Ontario called the Hemlo goldfield, in which there are now three operating mines. That particular area had been prospected for many years, and there had been signs of mineralization.
They put the TransCanada Highway beside it, and many geologists drove by and would have sworn there was nothing there. In fact, the Ontario government was ready to put a park in that area and then, lo and behold, a company came along and, after drilling 70 holes, discovered one of the major gold camps in Canada. Even though many geologists had driven by it, for many decades no one realized that that deposit existed.
This is part of the business we live in. The Good Lord made these deposits, and he cunningly hid them. Geologists must try to find them, but it is extremely difficult to do so, no matter how well trained you are.
The Chairman: Mr. Andrews, you made a comment that there is high risk in naming this park on the basis of insufficient assessment, but you did not elaborate on that. Could you do so, please?
Mr. Andrews: This goes back to my observation that a park is a preservation tool, and basically eliminates all other values in perpetuity. In order to come to the decision that a park is the most appropriate tool, you must make sure you have all the information you need to make that decision, especially as concerns the local people. I believe that you must make a proper assessment of the social, environmental and economic impacts of using such a tool in the area. I get a sense that we are probably not there yet, in terms of assessing all the information before we make that decision.
The Chairman: Your reference was to the whole park, not just this 2.5 per cent area. Your position is that the creation of this whole park is based on insufficient assessment?
Mr. Andrews: Yes.
Senator Taylor: I wish to build on a question you brought up concerning the air magnetic survey. I was not here when representatives from Darnley Bay made their presentation, but you seem to have rubbed elbows with them when you mentioned the dip of the ore body, the word "shallow," and so on. Air magnetic surveys, as you know, do not run just down the boundary line; they overlap. I notice the old permit boundary here.
I would assume that the air magnetic surveys and the gravity surveys probably covered the area that you have on the map here. Now, is this the only anomaly they found or is this the anomaly on the edge of their survey?In other words, has the rest of this park been flown, and is this the only anomaly that you have in that whole park area? Alternatively, has it not been flown and this is the anomaly on the edge of what you did fly?
Mr. Comba: The answer to the first part of your question, senator, is that the original detection of this anomaly goes back to work that was done by the Geological Survey of Canada. The flying was done in 1964. A much larger area was covered by the airborne survey in 1964. The gravity anomaly is mainly based on readings that were taken on the ground. This kind of survey cannot be done from the air; it involves ground stations. Again, this was done by the Geological Survey of Canada.
My understanding is that they had permits to do the portion of the anomaly that was flown by Darnley Bay. Mr. Chairman, I believe that that was the response from Mr. LaPrairie when he was asked this question during his testimony. My understanding is that he had permission.
Senator Taylor: That was not quite what I was asking. I wish to know if this was the edge of the survey or not. As you know, we have what we call the "watermelon seed theory: that goes along with the dumb holes. That is, every time you reach for an anomaly it squirts out and goes over to the land that you do not own. You must go back and buy that the next time around.
Mr. Comba: I have drilled a few of those.
My understanding is that the proprietary survey that was done by Darnley Bay, is essentially on the edge. Certainly the Geological Survey of Canada covered a much wider area and, again, it is this whole process of focusing down. A significant part of the park has been covered by airborne surveys, but there is nothing else like this in the park. This is one of the top five anomalies of this type in North America. This is a very unusual feature.
Senator Butts: In your submission to the committee of November 2, 1998, you talking about requesting that the boundary of the park be changed. You say that the high mineral potential of the area would have a significant positive, socio-economic and spiritual impact on the people.
What is the spiritual impact?
Mr. Comba: Senator, I believe that people can take a great deal of pride in themselves when they have meaningful jobs.
Senator Butts: I call that economics.
Mr. Comba: I believe it goes beyond that. People who are gainfully employed take a great deal of pride in themselves.
Senator Butts: They take even more pride in the beauty of nature. That is more spiritual than economics.
Mr. Comba: We have tried to show that you can have both. For people who live and work in the north, the beauty of the landscape is as important as their jobs. They are both very important. I carry terrific memories of the time when I worked in the Northwest Territories. The beauty of the landscape is one of the things that remains with me, as well as the images of the animals.
I worked in aircraft on search and rescue, and I found it truly awe-inspiring to see the herd moving.
Senator Butts: If that is your definition of spiritual, they already have that. Your mine will not make it more spiritual.
Senator Adams: You are aware that the Inuvialuit have a land agreement with the Government of Canada. Are you familiar with section 22.1 of that agreement?
Mr. Comba: I have heard about it, although I have no direct knowledge of it.
Senator Adams: The agreement is with the Government of Canada, but Parks Canada is saying that the section is no good, and that they know nothing about it. Through their land claims settlements with the Government of Canada, these people want to control their minerals, oil and gas, and caribou. All of that should have been included in the agreement. Now the government is saying it is no good.We are the ones who live up there, yet people in Ottawa are telling us that we cannot do this because the caribou will be killed off. We will not kill off the caribou.
You have been up there for many years, and you know that the caribou herd is increasing every year. There are 120,000 caribou, and only 5,000 are killed each year. Every year, 30,000 to 40,000 caribou are born.
Are the caribou more important, of is the community more important? That is my concern. Most of the people up there are living on welfare.
Mr. Comba: As a Canadian, I am personally grateful for the 29 per cent of Inuvialuit land that has been given to the people of Canada as parks. I am embarrassed that we cannot give them back the small area they are asking for, especially if this deal was sold to them on the basis of co-management. I find it very parsimonious and troubling to be talking about this. As a Canadian, this troubles me. These people have been very generous with their land.
The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us and for an enlightening presentation. We are grateful to you.
Our next witnesses are from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Please proceed.
Ms Mary Granskou, Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Honourable senators, thank you for having us here this morning. It is a delight for our organization to be here today. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society was established in 1963, and we will celebrate its 35th anniversary on Thursday evening. We are very proud of our history of achievement in both northern and southern Canada.
Our organization is built from the ground up. We have grassroots support across the country. We have 10 chapters across Canada, in both the north and the south, and they move our conservation issues forward. It is fortunate that Juri Peepre is here today. You will be able to hear his perspective from the North, which will be much more relevant to this issue than mine is. However, I should like to give some background on this issue.
Before I launch into our views on this particular issue, I should like to give you an anecdote about our organization. We actually grew in part out of a call from a parliamentarian in the early 1960s, the Honourable Alvin Hamilton, who was the minister responsible for national parks. He asked how we might protect our national parks from all the honky-tonk devices known to man. Minister Hamilton felt that Canada needed a public voice to preserve and protect our parks from a public perspective, and to call for what is needed in the realm of conservation. Our organization grew in part out of that motivation. I wanted to share that with you, because it is relevant to the issue that we are looking at.
We work closely with First Nations across the country on many issues. Mr. Peepre will expand on that. We also work with industry. The appropriate place to work with industry is on lands around protected areas, not within protected areas.
We also work closely with communities across the country, and with governments. Representatives from all those fields will be with us at the celebratory gala dinner that we are holding later this week in Vancouver.
I should like to start with seven brief points.
First, this is a national park. What is "a national park"? A national park is dedicated and established for all Canadians, both Aboriginal and non-aboriginal. A national park preserves ecosystems that are of outstanding value to Canadians. A national park follows a credible process. In this particular case, the process included seven years of negotiations. A national park in the North is established with the support of the communities. That also is relevant to this discussion today.
Second, parks are fundamental to conservation. Conservation cannot be achieved without core protected areas and sanctuaries for nature. It would be like trying to walk across Ottawa without food, shelter or warmth in winter. It cannot be done. Scientists around the world concur that floating reserves and such measures will not accomplish the fundamental goal of conservation. The fundamental principle or platform for conservation is having protected areas.
Third, the point is not to avoid the impacts of the mining industry; the point is to protect an ecosystem that is important to this nation.
Fourth, this mine is not a reality. We are dealing with an exploratory stage that is highly speculative. There has been a certain amount of discussion this morning about Voisey's Bay. An article about Voisey's Bay titled "Dead in the Water" appeared in The Globe and Mail. The industry was seen as being hammered by low prices around the world, particularly in the commodities market. This market is highly speculative.
Fifth, what is the will of the people? Canadians love their national parks. In fact, Canadians hold national parks to be even more important as a symbol of Canadian identity than hockey. What is the will of the people in the North? Mr. Peepre will elaborate much more on that, but the communities did support this national park, and chose this as a tool to achieve the goal of conserving the caribou.
Sixth, we must address leadership. Leadership is required on this issue. Leadership is important to preserve the sanctity of what a national park means in Canada. Canadians look to the federal government to uphold the highest standards of managing ecosystems.
Seventh, we are not playing a percentage game here. We are dealing with conservation, not percentages. The area we are discussing is part of the critical calving grounds of the herd.
I should like to refer to a brief section from John Nagy's report, which was presented to this committee. As a background to this, caribou can suffer up to 50 per cent mortality in the first month after birth. The report indicates that caribou that are disturbed during calving -- cows in particular -- may injure or abandon their calves. Injured or abandoned calves usually die. The normal feeding activities of cows may be interrupted by repeated disturbances. This may result in reduced milk production and reduced calf survival. The report goes on to state that, during the first week to 10 days after birth, calves form large post-calving groups with the rest of the herd. Disturbance of these groups may cause panic reactions that lead to injury or abandonment of calves. Again, injured or abandoned calves usually die.
This issue is about protecting the caribou herd. As an analogy, would we send a mining operation into a child's nursery? No, we would not. It is the same issue here.
I will now pass the microphone to Juri Peepre to elaborate more on the situation in the North.
Mr. Juri Peepre, Member, Yukon Chapter, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: I live in Whitehorse, Yukon, and I have lived in the North for about 11 years. I started working there in the mid-1970s, and loved it so much that I knew I eventually wanted to raise a family there.
I am here to bring you the perspective of a person who lives and works in the North. Although I live in the Yukon, my main purpose is to demonstrate that we have learned many lessons with respect to the protection of caribou herds and the issue of mining in a critical wildlife habitat in the Yukon.
Much of my presentation will be referring to the Porcupine caribou herd and points west of the Tuktut Nogait Park. My point is to illustrate the lessons that we have learned, and they are good lessons.
The Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society urges the Senate committee to pass Bill C-38 without amendment. During the past 10 years, we have focused on national and territorial park issues in the North, particularly those related to the health of both barren ground and woodland caribou herds. We have worked in close cooperation with First Nations and communities in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Northerners, and all Canadians, support national parks. Canada is the steward of more than 20 per cent of the world's remaining wilderness. In Northern Canada, the great herds of barren ground caribou can still travel their entire range, and hundreds of thousands of migrating waterfowl find refuge for nesting. If we consider the rapid rate of species extinction and loss of natural areas around the globe, it is clear we are responsible for deciding the future of a priceless national asset.
In the Canadian North, the rate of mineral claim staking and development proposals far exceeds the pace of conservation efforts and protected areas establishment. Historically, the allocation of lands to mining interests has most often been done in advance of adequate consideration for wildlife and other conservation or community values.
The environmental, economic and cultural value of Canada's Northern wildlands will increase in time if we make the right decisions now. We have a responsibility to ensure that future generations will be able to appreciate and benefit from the North's unmatched wildlife and other natural resources. Our organization seeks a fair balance between conservation and development opportunities, and we affirm that the existing boundaries of Tuktut Nogait National Park reflect such a balance now.
It is abundantly clear from numerous surveys that the majority of Canadians not only support completing a network of parks, but they expect that the government must care for wildlife within those boundaries once those protected areas are established.
As northerners from Whitehorse, Yukon, along with our colleagues from the Northwest Territories, we would like to point out that many northern people are opposed to allowing speculative mineral exploration in Tuktut Nogait National Park. Through our work in the Yukon and in the western part of the Northwest Territories, we are well aware of the importance that many aboriginal and non-aboriginal people place on the continued health of the great herds of barren ground caribou. For example, the Gwich'in people and others have advocated the protection of the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd for more than 20 years. As a result, in the Yukon, two national parks, Ivvavik and Vuntut, play a critical role in ensuring the survival of the Porcupine caribou herd.
Industrial development has no place in core protected areas. Through the understanding of both scientific and traditional knowledge, most northern people support protecting caribou calving grounds. In fact, in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, protected area strategies are nearing completion. One of the key provisions in both jurisdictions is that there will be no mining or other developments in core protected areas. This policy on protected areas reflects the commitments made in 1994 in the Leadership Accord of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative which northerners played a key role in developing. We continue to support this consensus statement, which recognizes that mining is not compatible with core protected areas.
We are happy to note that the Yukon Chamber of Mines recently issued a public statement in support of the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy. We also look to the Chamber of Mines in Manitoba, which has been working closely on the establishment of new national parks and other parks in that province.
Our territorial protected areas strategies, and others across Canada, indicate that the great majority of people do not support the notion of floating parks or floating reserves with boundaries that are movable in response to speculative mining interests. While we support conservation efforts over the entire landscape, northerners know that we also need large, intact, permanently protected areas to ensure that wildlife and our way of life are sustained in perpetuity. Permanent protected areas are essential to the conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of a healthy and diversified economy.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to what previous witnesses have indicated, mining in the North leaves a large and lasting footprint on the landscape. It is not just the mine shaft; it is the roads, the tailings ponds, the power developments, the large infrastructure that, in the past, has lasted a century. In the northern part of the Yukon, the Faro mine, which is no longer operating because of reduced metal prices, has left a $100 million public liability in cleanup costs. There is not a short-term footprint. This footprint will be there for centuries. In fact, in this case, mining has foreclosed options on all other land uses. This is it not to speak against mining. It is to point out that mining does not have a small impact. If we choose mining on the land, we must recognize that, in fact, it closes out options for conservation in the future. It is not a small imprint.
We have learned many lessons from the example of the Porcupine caribou herd. For years, the Gwich'in people in both Canada and Alaska have advocated full protection of the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. The Yukon and Canadian governments have consistently supported protection of the calving grounds, and Canada continues to advocate this view in Washington. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been a high priority for our foreign policy for more than 10 years. The health and vitality of the Porcupine caribou herd depends on the integrity of the core calving area on the north coast of Alaska, the so-called "1002 Lands." The scientific data gathered over decades indicates that oil and gas development in the core calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd would be detrimental to the long-term health of the herd as well as the cultural survival of the Gwich'in people.
The calving grounds in the "1002 Lands" make up a relatively small percentage of the range of the Porcupine caribou, but without unfettered access to this critical calving area, the herd could be decimated. The Porcupine caribou herd has many instructive examples for the Tuktut Nogait situation. There is a strong body of scientific evidence that core calving grounds are essential to the health of barren ground caribou.
There is an equally strong body of traditional ecological knowledge in the Yukon that indicates the sacred nature of calving grounds. A seemingly modest loss of core calving land can have a large-scale impact on survival, since there are very specific environmental conditions needed for successful pre-calving, calving and post-calving times.
Let me ask a question. Consider a parallel example with the endangered peregrine falcon. If you left most of its range intact, but destroyed the cliff areas required for nesting, what would happen to the peregrine falcon population? Canada's diplomatic position on the protection of the Porcupine caribou calving grounds could be seriously undermined if development is allowed in the calving grounds within Tuktut Nogait National Park. The future of the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd will be decided in the next few years. It is imperative that Canada support the efforts of the Gwich'in people.
The Tuktut Nogait National Park does have a bearing on the opportunity to protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. Does the Senate of Canada wish to risk damaging the viability of the Bluenose caribou herd as well as contribute to a lost opportunity to protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, all because of a highly speculative mining proposal?
We have heard much about jobs. We need not speculate on the importance of the core caribou calving grounds for the Bluenose caribou herd. If the calving grounds are disturbed, the risk of herd failure is high, with long-term economic, cultural and environmental costs. The proposal to change the boundary of Tuktut Nogait National Park is based on speculation that there may be economically viable minerals underneath the park. Northern people are very familiar with the promise of jobs from mining ventures -- jobs that often do not materialize. In fact, in the Yukon, only a tiny percentage of mineral claims -- and I am led to believe it is one in 7,000 -- results in a mine. The average life span of a mine in the Yukon is seven years.
There is no assurance that changing the Tuktut Nogait boundaries will produce any additional local jobs, particularly longer-term opportunities.
About 80 per cent of the mineral potential lies outside the park. Why not allow for exploration in that area while leaving the park boundaries intact and avoiding the risk of permanent damage to the Bluenose caribou herd? This is the balanced approach that the existing Tuktut Nogait National Park boundary already reflects.
National parks across the North have demonstrated a significant, permanent, positive economic impact on local economies. In the Yukon, for example, the three existing national parks contribute about $8 million per year in direct revenues, with further economic impacts from spin-off service industries and tourism.
The jobs that parks provide are permanent. Many are located in the communities where the protected areas are located. In other words, parks distribute moneys into those communities, which are, perhaps, the remotest and the most at risk of unemployment problems. This is the pattern across Canada.
The long-term economic value of a reliable food supply from the caribou herd is an important dimension to conservation and it is often not considered. As northerners, we respect the aspirations of aboriginal peoples. We understand the importance of stable local community economies. We also support resource development where it is appropriate and does not pose high risks to environment, wildlife populations or communities.
In our view, the evidence with respect to Tuktut Nogait National Park indicates that the existing park boundaries best reflect a balance between both conservation and development interests. It is for this reason that we urge the Senate to pass Bill C-38 without changes.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. I know I speak for all members of the committee when I thank the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society for the excellent and important work you are doing. We encourage you to continue in those endeavours.
Senator Gustafson: I am concerned about the history of the witnesses. You said that you spent 12 years in the North, Mr. Peepre. Are you employed by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society?
Mr. Peepre: No, I am not. I am employed by the World Wildlife Fund as a contractor. However, I work with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and World Wildlife Fund. I am particularly working on the endangered species campaign in the North.
Senator Gustafson: Have you held any job not directly related to this type of work?
Mr. Peepre: Yes. When I first moved to the Yukon, I was a consultant in protected areas for 10 years. Much of that work was with First Nations. I have worked in communities throughout the Yukon on protected area proposals at the invitation of First Nations and communities. I have also worked in Inuvik and in other points in the Northwest Territories.
Senator Gustafson: I wish to ask the same question of Ms Granskou. Do you live in the North now?
Ms Granskou: No, I live in Toronto, which is where our national office is located.
Senator Gustafson: The witnesses from the local area and the native people who appeared before this committee have brought us a different message and very different concerns. Having sat through that testimony, I cannot help but be impressed by Senator Adams' knowledge of the area and the concern he brings to us concerning his people.
The concern about the boundaries is minimal. Yet, there seems to be no will to make any compromise here.
As southerners -- and I am the most southern Canadian here because I live 20 miles from the United States border -- we become very selfish. This is not to suggest that we should not have good environmental standards. We certainly believe in those things. However, as southern Canadians, we must have some concern for the native people. We sometimes bring upon ourselves situations that should not arise because we do not understand the problems they face.
I wish to reiterate that I appreciate Senator Adams' insight, having lived there a lifetime with the people and realizing that there must also be some concern for them. In this case, it is a compromise that is minimal. It could be attained for the benefit of the native people and also for the environmental reasons that you put forward.
Mr. Peepre: As I said at the outset, I was using the Yukon example as a parallel. I can assure you that the Gwich'in people do not feel that any part of the core caribou calving grounds in Alaska are subject to compromise or negotiations. The point is that in a nursery -- which this is -- a small park can have a devastating impact. The original park boundary that was negotiated was already a compromise. The Gwich'in and Alaska examples are parallel situations. There is no room for compromise in this critical area. That is the issue.
From a conservation point of view, it is not possible to move boundaries to keep the land quantum the same. We are talking about an area that is ecologically important. If it were just an example of a landscape, then I would argue that our organization and others probably would have no problem in adjusting the boundaries. However, we are talking about a critical wildlife population, which the evidence suggests is not negotiable.
Senator Gustafson: In terms of the number of caribou, I seem to be getting different figures from different people. Senator Adams indicates that the number is growing.
Senator Adams: Yes, they are.
Senator Gustafson: In the South right now, there are so many geese covering quarter sections that they have opened the bagging limits to 30 geese. There is a danger that they will destroy some of the habitat in the North. You probably know more about this than I do.
Mr. Peepre: In fact, the Porcupine caribou herd has declined by about 20,000 animals over the last five years. The central Arctic herd has declined by about 10 per cent, largely due to oil development in Alaska. The populations vary depending upon where you are. It is not accurate for us to assume that all the caribou herd populations are increasing. In fact, some are going down and others are going up.
Senator Gustafson: What about the Darnley Bay area?
Mr. Peepre: Are you referring to the Bluenose caribou herd?
Senator Gustafson: Yes.
Mr. Peepre: I do not have knowledge of the biology of that herd, other than the information that you have.
Senator Adams: You mentioned the Porcupine caribou. Is their population decreasing?
Mr. Peepre: Yes.
Senator Adams: You know that, over the years, all the caribou do not stay in the same place all the time. You understand that, do you not?
Mr. Peepre: Yes.
Senator Adams: Are you not concerned that some might move into a different area?
Mr. Peepre: Yes. That figure is not mine. It is a number that has been given by the Canadian Wildlife Service in cooperation with the Gwich'in. Actually, it is the Porcupine Caribou Management Board that came up with that number. That is a collection of both scientists and local people. They determined that the overall herd has declined. They are not offering an explanation because right now the Porcupine caribou herd has no development in its range. Thus, it is still intact.
Senator Adams: Caribou will move anywhere, as long as they have food and water. They do not cover the same trail every year. You understand that, do you not?
Mr. Peepre: Yes. The Porcupine caribou range covers all of the northern part of Yukon, as well as a huge part of northern Alaska.
While it is true that the caribou travel in many different places over the year, the core calving grounds are in a fairly restricted area. If you look at the winter range of the Porcupine caribou herd in the Yukon, they use different areas over a wide range. However, over the last 10 to 15 years in the calving grounds, they have always gone back to a very specific place.
It is true that there is some range of movement around the core calving areas, but basically they stay within that core area. There are specific reasons for that. On the north coast, it is because they want to be free of bugs and particular plants are available in that area.
Senator Hays: I wish to touch upon the impact that a change to the boundaries would have on the Canadian negotiating position and the consistent position of the United States administration in the face of Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski's stand on the Alaskan national wildlife preserve. Could you comment further on that?
We have heard a great deal about proposed parks and boundaries. These are not parks yet because legislation has not been dealt with by Parliament to turn them into parks. Why is this so important in that context?
Ms Granskou: Those are good questions.
First, I will respond briefly on Canada's position on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. It has been a top priority in foreign policy for well over 10 years. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed a budget bill that would have opened up the calving grounds to development. That veto was in part because of the involvement at the highest levels of the Canadian government advocating a conservation position.
If this boundary is changed, we have from good sources that it could undo years of work in support of native communities and the environment. In particular, certain congressional delegations, of which you are aware, would use this against us and for the issue of development in that very sensitive area.
It is difficult for Canada to play a leadership role on one critical issue related to caribou calving grounds and then take another position on another issue.
Mr. Peepre: I should like to refer to the position of the Yukon government. I have a letter from the Yukon government leader concerning their position on the Porcupine caribou heard. Our government leader, Piers McDonald, was recently in Washington and spoke to Senator Stevens about the Porcupine caribou herd. He restated the firm position of the Yukon government that the entire core calving area of the Porcupine caribou herd must be protected in Alaska. That has been a consistent position of the Yukon government for the last 20 years.
The Gwich'in people have also stated that the diplomatic position of the Canadian government is extremely important. Conversely, it is important that Canada keep its own situation clean, as it were, so that we do not end up in a contradictory position where we are preaching to the Americans on one issue, and not taking care of our house on the other. The Gwich'in feel strongly about this issue.
I am not a Gwich'in person and cannot speak for them. However, I am part of a steering committee to help determine the protection requirements for the Porcupine caribou herd.
Senator Hays: Do you know the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories on the Porcupine herd as it relates to the calving ground at ANWR?
Mr. Peepre: I am not aware of a formal letter or position of the NWT government. The Inuvialuit are an integral part of the effort to save the core calving area of the lands.
Senator Hays: We talk about the calving grounds and the calving period in May. What is the gestation period of the caribou? Do they ovulate more than once in terms of the breeding time?
Mr. Peepre: I am not a biologist by training, so I would be treading on an area with which I am not familiar. I am sure Senator Adams would have a better appreciation of that.
Senator Hays: I will approach him later.
The Chairman: I am having trouble with the precedent argument here. I recall when this committee went to Washington under Chairman Carney, we met with representatives who spoke in favour of preserving the Porcupine caribou herd and the calving grounds. I also recall that we spoke strongly in that regard. However, when I try to make the analogy today with respect to what is before us, we are here to set a park boundary and we are here to listen to the people who are involved. Officials from the Northwest Territories spoke to us, as did the native population. They spoke to us using language indicating that they did not have this concern about the Bluenose caribou in the same respect.
We are talking in terms of drilling oil wells within that area, whereas in this area, we are talking in terms of an underground mine that covers the area of a shopping centre. Can you give us something firmer to tell us that this precedent is dangerous, given that I do not find the two areas analogous?
Mr. Peepre: The areas are ecologically similar. Barren ground herds are different in the sense that they are different herds and they occupy different niches in the ecosystem. However, the real issue is the function of core calving grounds. Whether or not it is an oil development or a hard rock mine, the question is this: Are we putting those caribou herds at an undue risk? Is the risk unacceptably high to carry out development?
First, even though the mining industry would suggest that this mine only occupies the size of a shopping centre, if you look at the infrastructure and exploration requirements of the mining industry for hard rock mining, we can all agree that it actually has a much larger footprint over a much longer period of time. When you add the entire mining infrastructure together, it is considerable.
Second, if you look at several parts of the Yukon landscape that have been explored, drilled and not rehabilitated, you will see that those scars are permanent. In fact, the reclamation requirements in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories take centuries. The impact is lasting.
Is this a precedent? People in the Yukon see it more as a question of risk analysis. They feel that the Americans would then have a strong argument to discount the Canadian position. Whether it is hard rock mining or oil development, that is not the issue. The issue is this: Is our credibility hurt internationally by having one diplomatic position on one caribou herd and a different position for a different herd? It is a question of consistency.
Senator Adams: I sometimes prefer not to ask questions of witnesses who do not come from my area of the country because they are trying to tell my people how to live in the North. You have been there for 12 years. Have you been on the land looking for minerals? You are paid every two weeks, and you see all the other people in the community who have no jobs. Every time we try to protect something, we hurt the people in the community.
Years ago, Greenpeace campaigned all over the States and in the North. How many people in the community were hurt as a result of that campaign? The people cannot hunt seals and foxes any more. They cannot trap any more. What is the next thing from you people? Do you want to protect the mammals? We protect the mammals.
Sometimes, I am ashamed of telling people in Ottawa that certain groups are hurting the people in the northern communities. You say that you have lived there for 12 years. What have you learned in the time you have been living in that community?
You are not buying machines or skidoos to go out hunting. People must buy guns and gas in order to work on the land.
The caribou will be there forever. A mine will not kill them. If a mine is put in there, the people of the North will have a better future. People will not be committing suicide because they do not have jobs.
Everything up North is expensive. Imagine people from Toronto telling the people of Paulatuk to pass Bill C-38 without amendment. If we have no mine development there, what will our future be?
You mentioned the peregrine falcons. I can go out on the land and see them returning every year to their nests. No one is bothering them. You can see caribou right on the airstrips. You can see muskox feeding right outside the mining camps. The muskox are now beginning to move toward the sea because the climate is getting warmer, there are too many mosquitoes, and they are looking for a cooler place on the shore. It seems the caribou do the same thing in the summer. They move close to the shore because there are too many mosquitoes.
We heard from people in the community asking us when the mining operations would start. People believe that the mines will not hurt any herd. What is the big concern about 2 per cent of the land when the final boundaries have not even been approved yet? The consultations have not been completed on the Nunavut boundaries yet. I can support the people who live in Paulatuk and work with the Inuvialuit. I do not support what these witnesses are saying to us today.
Mr. Peepre: Thank you for your comments. First, I wish to say a few things about our organization.
We recognize that there were some environmental organizations who went to the North several years ago and preached about trapping and hunting. We are very aware of the damage that was caused. I want to assure you that the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is not, and never has been, an anti-trapping or anti-hunting organization. We absolutely endorse all of the land claims agreements in the North. We have never advocated any kind of position opposing hunting or trapping.
I want to make sure that the committee understands that there are many different environmental organizations. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is composed of community people in the North. We have members in Old Crow where the Gwich'in live and all throughout the Yukon. We have members in Inuvik and throughout communities in the Northwest Territories.
We are involved in working with communities in the North. Our work right now on protected areas, in both national and territorial parks in the Yukon, is at the request of First Nations most often. It is at the request of communities that we are invited into the communities to work on these issues. I do not think we are an organization that tries to dictate. We want to work with communities. We do work with communities and we have engaged in a number of projects. In particular, we are working in cooperation with the Gwich'in people now on the Porcupine caribou herd issue.
I am proud to be a northerner, but I am also proud to be a Canadian. I would suggest that we are talking about a national park here. That is why we are at the table. All Canadians are concerned about the future of Tuktut Nogait National Park. We have every respect for the community of Paulatuk and the aspirations of the Inuvialuit people but we are here to present differences of views. We want you to know that some other northerners in the Yukon have different views. Aboriginal organizations in the Yukon differ from other aboriginal organizations. There is a diversity of opinion. We are here to present part of that diversity. However, I return to the point that it is a national park.
With respect to jobs, we have done a lot of thinking about economics of protected areas and resource development. We are concerned that the economics of mining and industrial development are often done on a short-term basis. We do not take into account the long-term costs. I alluded to the Faro example and the huge public liability there.
We are not opposed to mining. We are concerned about the promises of riches and jobs when often those jobs are very short-term and create damages that the community must endure for decades or even centuries after that.
We have had examples of acid waste spills in the Yukon where the communities are now trying to clean up. We are asking for a balance between conservation and development. We are not opposed to mining but we are concerned about some of the economics that are used to justify mining.
Protected areas in the Yukon do have an economic value. They have an economic value in the Northwest Territories also. The difference is that when a park is created, there may not be 100 jobs for 5 years. There may be 10 or 15 jobs in the community forever. That is one of the differences. The spin-off effects are enormous. Tourism is the number two industry now in the Yukon. I suspect in the Northwest Territories that is true also.
We must ensure that we protect alternatives for the future in the North. We need a strong mining industry, yes. We need a strong, community-based forest industry where there are trees in the southern part of the North. However, tourism is also viewed as an economic engine in the North. By ensuring that the caribou herds are healthy and that we have in place a system of national parks, we can ensure economic stability for northerners.
Senator Butts: Ms Granskou, I wrote down your seven points. I am surprised you did not speak about a concern for the other parks that already have their boundaries but are not under the National Park Act in Canada in general. Is that a concern for you?
Ms Granskou: Yes, it is very much a concern. It is not only the unlegislated seven national parks that are of tremendous concern here; it is every protected area in Canada. I come back to an original point I made, which was that Canadians look to the national parks system to uphold the highest standards of managing protected areas based first on the need to protect the ecosystem.
If a decision were made to alter the boundaries of a national park for mineral interests, particularly excising a critical area for wildlife, it would fuel industry's campaign to gain access to protected areas across Canada. I know from experience that this is under way in Ontario, in Manitoba, and in many areas in Canada.
This goes beyond the national parks system as well. First and foremost, decisions about boundaries of national parks reflect tremendously on our national credibility. Boundaries are held by all Canadians as being permanent, as having credibility and certainty. Industry talks about business certainty. We need some conservation certainty as well.
That is the main concern of the conservation community related particularly to other national parks.
The Chairman: One should add, though, that we are here to set the boundaries of the park. The park is not created yet. That is why we are having this discussion. People are approaching this like it is a fait accompli, like the park is here and we are changing the boundaries. We are here to set the boundaries of the park, taking into consideration all of the testimony that we are hearing.
Senator Butts: There has been an agreement signed with these boundaries. What is not done is that it is not legislated in the park act.
I now have a question for Mr. Peepre. You have answered in part, but we have had a joke around here about this particular park costing $10 million for two jobs. I should like to fill in that gap. Could you help me with what has happened in the Yukon? For example, you say it is $8 million per year in direct revenue and you talk about the jobs in the park and the spin-off in tourism. Could you put numbers on that so that I can have a vision besides two jobs?
Mr. Peepre: I do not have the figures on the forecasts that were made for Tuktut Nogait National Park, but I can tell you a couple of things that I believe are of interest.
A study was done by the Northwest Territories parks department on this issue. Parks, in general, are a wise investment. It has been found that, for every $1 the government invests, you get approximately $3 back in other spin-offs, such as tourism. Parks do not lose money in most situations, they actually create new jobs and economic opportunities. It is not as if it is a drain on the total economy. That is an important point.
Although Parks Canada may only be putting a certain amount of money into the management of Tuktut Nogait National Park, there almost certainly will be, and probably already is, a small tourism industry that will develop around that.
The point I should like to make is that there is a small territorial park north of the Yukon called Herschel Island Territorial Park. There are actually only four seasonal jobs affiliated with Herschel Island Territorial Park, but those four seasonal jobs in the community of Aklavik are extremely significant because there is not much other employment. A small number of jobs in a very small community can have a large spin-off effect of having four people on wages at least half of the year. It is a question of the total package over a long period of time.
In the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon the basic rule of thumb is that for every dollar you invest you will get more back later. I could provide more specifics on the Yukon example if you like. I am not sure how far you want to pursue that.
Senator Butts: That is useful. We are talking here about assured jobs, which mining may not ever produce. If we can get $3 back for every $1 we spend, what are we complaining about?
Senator Adams: Why do they need tourism in Tuktut Nogait Park to make revenue for their park? Right now we are saying protect the caribou and there should be no activity going on in the park. Why would the tourists need to go there?
Mr. Peepre: That would be entirely up to the community.
Senator Adams: I feel there is no income there for the people in the community. We are talking about $10 million that Parks Canada has spent over the last seven years. In the meantime, we are talking about boundaries that have not even been set yet. Now, we wish to introduce tourism to the park. We are saying do not bother the caribou, however, if tourists go in they will disturb the caribou during calving season. There is no highway and you cannot build a highway there. How will the tourists gain access to the park? Do you know how much it costs to go up to Paulatuk for a holiday?
Mr. Peepre: Yes, I do, and there are good examples in the Yukon of that situation. We have Ivvavik National Park and Vuntut National Park in the Yukon. The reason for saving those areas was to protect the caribou herds. In the case of Vuntut National Park, for the Gwich'in people it was to save their water supply, and so on. Now that the park is established, they already are in Ivvavik working on the tourism opportunities.
For example, the Inuvialuit own an aircraft charter company and are regularly flying tourists into both Ivvavik National Park and up to Herschel Island Territorial Park. There are interpretive centres and guided naturalist tours. All those things have developed since the park was established.
That is an important point you made. No one is suggesting that we want mass tourism, which will harass the caribou. However, people who are visiting in this area appreciate the chance to see caribou if that opportunity exists. In the Yukon, we are finding that the international interest in the territories has gone up by 20 per cent over the last five years. Germans, Austrians and other European people are extremely interested in seeing and experiencing not only the wildlife, but also the native cultures of the Yukon. They are eager to engage in guided activities.
Yes, it is expensive, but people are willing to come and they already are coming.
Senator Adams: Between Canada and the States, we now have an over population of the snow geese and we will fight over who will kill off the geese between this year and next year. You cannot protect this wildlife. It is nature. We cannot regulate the wildlife. Right now, all the birds go up there. They have an abundance of food, but they are over populated. Between last year and this year, we have had a large amount of snow geese. How will we stop it?
We have heard that in 10 or 15 years time Tuktut Nogait Park will, perhaps, not have any caribou. What will you do with the people who live in the community then?
Senator Butts asked you about the $10 million spent by Parks Canada. The last time we heard witnesses from the territorial government, they said the jobs stay in Ottawa and do not go to the community. That is not creating jobs for the community. If you want a national park, why come up North and create a national park? You can decide to make a park in the south and who will save the North? It is our land and we want control.
Senator Gustafson: I have a comment to make. If 2.5 per cent of the change in the boundaries will not change the fact that, if you have park boundaries, you will still have people there with jobs looking after that park area, making the argument that this 2.5 per cent will change the situation is absolutely ridiculous. The earlier witnesses who appeared before this committee made the strong point of having reasonable use, with good environmental conditions, and also having a park. Why would it not be reasonable to embrace that strategy? It makes sense to me.
You cannot tell me that removing 2.5 per cent of this park for the sake of having reasonable environmental use will keep the park area from having four jobs, as you say. Let us be realistic about this.
Senator Taylor: What if the government took 2.5 per cent per year? There would be no guarantee that they would not return next year for another 2.5 per cent.
Senator Gustafson: They will do that if they intend to construct a highway there. However, somewhere along the line, reason must prevail.
Senator Hays: If there was a decision by Parks Canada to be accommodating -- which there is not, so this is hypothetical -- surely it would involve a renegotiation. They would wish to trade it for land on the coast or something like that, which would prolong the negotiation.
If Parks Canada were responsive to the requests of the other stakeholders to reopen the issue of the park boundary in the interests of those whom Parks Canada represents, namely, all of us who want to see the park system nearer completion, would you not speculate that they would enter into a larger negotiation in terms of the coastal area above the park and so on?
If you prefer not to comment, that is fine.
Ms Granskou: I would like to comment on both your supplemental questions, if I may.
The issue here is related to core calving grounds. Let us remember that the first principle of the park agreement and the reason for it is to protect the Bluenose herd. The core calving grounds are the nursery. This area overlays with the core calving grounds. In our view, it is not acceptable to change the boundaries because the core calving grounds must be given the highest level of protection possible. As Mr. Peepre said, the compromise has already been made because the park does not capture the entire calving range of the herd.
In terms of whether it could be traded for other lands so that the net landscape would not be diminished, I would say that is a separate exercise. In this case, we are looking at this particular boundary and for that reason we do not support any change.
Senator Hays: I came into these hearings on that very point; the issue of what is in place to ensure that the calving cycle of the Bluenose caribou is respected and its integrity kept intact to the degree that it can be alongside of human development.
As a result of Mr. Nagy tracking with these collars over a period of years, I have a vivid picture in mind of the migratory path of the Bluenose. Although they do cover this area in particular, they cover the entire area. This particular piece of land is but a small part of the whole issue and does not resolve the problem in terms of whether this is in or out of the park.
However, you have answered that question as best you can.
Senator Taylor: In my experience as a mining engineer, companies try to exhaust mines in 10 years or so. It is much better to build on renewable energy than non-renewable energy. Mineworkers move all over the world and it is not always the local people who get the mining jobs.
This particular area is great for fishing Arctic char as well as being very scenic. Tourism is very important for creating jobs in the area. You have mentioned caribou as well as tourism, but what about fishing? We are destroying our fishing streams in the temperate zone in Canada with logging and so on, and there will be more interest in this area.
Mr. Peepre: I am glad you raised that point. We did not get to that in our presentation, but you are absolutely right. The quality of the char in the Hornaday River and the scenery there are natural resources which are being used to attract tourism. That is an important dimension of this park.
Senator Fairbairn: The question of balance has played a large role in this issue and others in the North and elsewhere -- how to achieve the best balance between the development of the human population and the protection of the animal population.
Do you think that with these boundaries a real effort has been to strike a balance between development on the outside and protection within? Do you see that as the balance about which many people are concerned?
Ms Granskou: I was pleased to hear, in Darnley Bay's presentation, that the 20 per cent within the park which is of interest to them is, in fact, the deepest and least accessible reserves, at least on preliminary analysis. It is very fortunate that the reserves are closer to the surface further west. As well, Falconbridge has said before this committee that they would continue with their exploratory work. They will obviously not fold up and walk away if the boundaries are left as is.
Obviously, the business interest is still sound. From that perspective, I would say yes.
The mining industry has signed the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, which supports a system of protected areas. We are calling on them to honour that commitment. In this particular case, an agreement has already been made.
In terms of balance for the communities, we have heard much about mining jobs. I should like to focus on the value that caribou provide for the communities that rely on them. There are 10 communities that would suffer as a result of a precipitous decline in the Bluenose caribou herd. The Arctic char are extremely important. The spawning grounds of the Arctic char are within the park.
In terms of balance, with regard to total community health, the health of the caribou population is fundamentally important. Our presentation today was based on maintaining the health of wildlife populations as a fundamental principle.
Mr. Peepre: As I indicated in my presentation, we believe that the compromises have already been made through seven years of careful negotiations, discussions and evaluations. We believe that the compromise is a good one. With 80 per cent of minerals outside of the park and 20 per cent in, those compromises have been made. How much more are we prepared to whittle away, putting the caribou and other park values at risk?
I would say the balance is there now.
Senator Gustafson: You make a strong point about tourism. If you do not have people coming to look at the area, tourism is a joke. If you have tourists, they will have some effect on the caribou. As far as I am concerned, that it a weak argument on the economic side of the situation.
First, this is a difficult area to access. However, even if tourists were to come in droves, and you were to accommodate them -- whether by flying them over in helicopters, or building roads -- this is a weak argument. The mining company has said that they will shut down during the calving period to accommodate the concerns of the community. They are talking about a site the size of a shopping mall. I would suggest to you that any amount of tourism would chase out twice as many caribou as the mine would. There is no question about that.
Mr. Peepre: As I indicated, tourism is the number two industry in the Yukon, and likely in the Northwest Territories as well. The Yukon government has a real problem with relying on industries alone, because it is a boom and bust cycle. People come in from Newfoundland and they take mining jobs in the Yukon; these jobs do not often go to Yukoners. The mining companies go after the skilled workforce that is all over the globe. Few jobs are usually given to local people.
The Yukon government has a policy now of trying to diversify and stabilize that boom and bust cycle so that we can overcome that problem. As northerners, we are looking at tourism as a key element of a sustainable future.
I am the first person to agree that communities must be extremely careful about how we manage that tourism, in order to ensure that it does not impact the resources that the tourists are coming to appreciate. I support your position on that entirely, but it is an economic argument.
Very few people are willing to set aside protected areas just for tourism. That is not why we set aside protected areas. We set them aside for conservation reasons. Tourism is an economic benefit that comes with park establishment. I do not think many northerners want parks just for the dollars. In our hearts, we want conservation, and we recognize that strong economic benefits come with that. The evidence is already there that tourism is happening and it is increasing. The issue is how to manage it and ensure that it is a viable alternative.
A study was done for the B.C. parks branch recently, and it clearly indicated that the B.C. system of parks was an export industry. Logging and mining are export industries; so are parks. Parks attract international tourists, who leave new dollars in the country. The job is to ensure that those parks are beautiful and remain that way for a long time, so as to ensure that it is a viable export industry. It is one of the three main elements of the economy in the north.
Senator Gustafson: You must admit that it is contradictory to a point. You are talking about the condition and welfare of the Bluenose caribou, and yet you are talking about bringing people in.
A 2 per cent change in boundaries that are not legally set is not much to ask to accommodate the situation that I see before us. It gives some consideration to the native people that live there, and to the positions that Senator Adams has been illustrating before this committee for days.
Senator Adams: Can you tell me how many calves have been born per year in this region?
Mr. Peepre: I have to refer to John Nagy's research. I do not know the figure off the top of my head.
Senator Adams: You are concerned about it. I thought you had information on that. We have heard that there are 122,000 caribou. Within the 2 per cent boundary, how many caribou calves are born every year?
Ms Granskou: I am not sure that even John Nagy identified that.
Senator Adams: You are concerned about it, tell me. Do not ask him. You are making a presentation to this committee. You tell me.
Mr. Peepre: I am not sure that anyone would know, including the Inuvialuit. I am not sure that anyone would know those numbers.
Senator Adams: What are we talking about, then?
Mr. Peepre: We are talking about risk in the caribou calving grounds.
Senator Adams: Have you been there in the calving season? Have you been there with the temperature changing, and the water in the rivers freezing after the calves have been born? You are saying that more caribou are getting hurt every year. Who is hurting them? Nature is hurting them, not mining. You understand that, do you not? Animals are like that.
Ms Granskou: Yes.
The Chairman: I appreciate what you are saying, but we are going over old ground, and we are running out of time. Our colleagues have other obligations.
I wish to thank you both for your presentation this morning. It is a very important issue, and it is sometimes very heated, but it is important to have people like yourselves come here and express different points of view. It is very significant. I thank you very much for your good work, and for being with us here today.
Ms Granskou: Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chairman: We were to conclude on December 1 with other witnesses, including the minister. Senator Taylor advises me that it is his wish and the wish of his caucus to proceed without any further witnesses. Obviously, I am in your hands.
The other witnesses we were hoping to have were the adjacent aboriginals in the area, who were to negotiate further issues on boundaries. We also planned to bring the minister back, and to go to clause-by-clause on December 1.
That was the position I thought we were in, and I told the members of this committee that we would not be voting on anything today. We are in your hands, obviously. Senator Taylor, you might wish to express the view of your caucus.
Senator Taylor: There is no more light to be shed on the issue by bringing in more people from either the mining side, the ecology side, or the aboriginal side. We have heard their stories two or three times, and I think we are ready to move on.
To make it easy, I move that we have a vote as to whether or not we conclude this study. There is only one clause in Bill C-38. Clause-by-clause study would not take long, because there is only one clause.
The Chairman: What is your motion?
Senator Taylor: That we take a vote on whether or not to go to clause-by-clause study.
The Chairman: You wish to go to clause-by-clause study at this time; is that right?
Senator Taylor: Yes.
Senator Adams: I am disappointed that you now want to proceed with clause-by-clause study. This is not our first session here today. We have been working on this for the last three or four weeks. I am disappointed that we did not spend more time on this bill, and that we did not hear all the witnesses that we wanted to hear. Other witnesses want to appear before the committee -- especially the natives who are concerned about that boundary. I do not want to proceed with clause-by-clause study until we hear from the other witnesses.
The Chairman: We have contacted the Inuvialuit, the Dene and Sahtu, and we have asked them to appear on December 1. We recognize that they are in negotiations with respect to the boundaries of this park. We would like to discuss issues relative to the expansion of the boundaries, and also their views on the nature of the co-management agreements, which are very much an issue with respect to this matter. That was the reason behind inviting them.
We then intended to go into clause-by-clause study. That is where we were, from an organizational point of view, until being advised this morning that some wanted to have this matter dealt with today.
Senator Comeau: My understanding is that Senator Taylor believes that these groups have nothing whatsoever to contribute to the study that is now being undertaken, and that we have heard it all and seen it all. That is the message we would send by voting.
The Chairman: We would not be calling any other witnesses. We would go to clause-by-clause, and conclude at this time.
Senator Taylor: First, it is not that they would have nothing to contribute. It is that they have nothing new to contribute. In other words, we are going in a circle on this bill.
Second, although the chairman said that we asked further witnesses to appear, that was not cleared by the steering committee. There are three of us on that steering committee. I checked with the other senator, but I want to make it clear that this is not a case of the steering committee changing its mind. The chairman has asked these other two groups to appear on his own initiative. We were not brought in on that issue.
To ask the First Nations people to continue to appear before us is merely a delay tactic. There is nothing new to be added. We can bring in another aboriginal group or an ecology group, and it can go on and on. It will provide nothing new. It boils down to this: They want a park, and there is a park boundary.
The issue is not the Bluenose calving ground, fishing, or anything else. The issue is: Are you allowed to change park boundaries because you think there may be something more rewarding inside those boundaries than just a park? It is an issue especially at this stage because -- I can say this as an engineer and a geologist -- it is a most speculative project. They have said optimistically that there is about 1 chance in 100 of anything being there.
I do not think we should give the impression to Canadians that proposed park boundaries can be changed just because someone thinks there is some economic advantage to a mine or an oil well. I come from a province where we have a lot of trouble with oil production. The people of Nova Scotia have also experienced the same problem. All of these things go round and round. Let us deal with this. We have other committee meetings to attend, and this is taking too much time.
Senator Butts: The park boundaries are on the Inuvialuit settlement grounds. The others that are outside that may still have a park, or may join in this park. This one is taking away a piece of the Inuvialuit land that was put into this park, however, and that was signed in an agreement. To get someone from down south or from the east will not add to our understanding of Bill C-38. That is my point. We have been round and round this long enough.
Senator Stratton: What happens if they do find something inside the park?
Senator Taylor: They cannot find anything inside the park, because once it is a park, they cannot explore any more.
Senator Stratton: There could be a motherlode there.
Senator Taylor: Yes, just as there may be one under Banff.
Senator Stratton: I understand that, but you are saying that we should just stick with this the way it is?
Senator Taylor: Yes.
Senator Stratton: Who would benefit if that motherlode was real and was hit? Would the people living in the North benefit?
Senator Taylor: That is questionable. I am a mining engineer, and there are a lot of people around the world who would argue that mines did not do much for them. You are asking who would benefit if we found a mine. How can you find a mine in a park if you do not have regulations?
Senator Stratton: That is my whole point. Part of our discussion on the boreal forest was the attempt by the native groups to expand their land base so that they could have some economic future. Here we are closing that door to that potential for those folks up there.
Senator Taylor: I guess you are a late arrival here.
Senator Stratton: Yes, I am.
Senator Taylor: About 80 per cent of the play is outside the park.
Senator Stratton: What if the 20 per cent inside were the motherlode?
Senator Taylor: After they have found the 80 per cent and taken it out of the ground, senators down the road may have to address the issue. Once they have mined up to the wall of the park, should they be permitted to sneak underneath that? Right now, at this stage of the game, 80 per cent of the wildcat play or anomaly is outside the park, and they would progress anyway.
The Chairman: The issue we have before us now is whether or not we do clause-by-clause today, or adjourn to December 1. Perhaps we could direct our thoughts to Senator Taylor's motion as to whether or not we put it over. Is there debate on that point?
Senator Hays: Looking around the room, I notice that there are five members of the opposition and seven members of the government, one of whom, in the person of Senator Adams, may not support the conclusion of the committee's work. As a practical matter, perhaps we should look to Senator Adams to see whether or not he wishes to hear more witnesses. If he votes not to deal with it now, Senator Taylor's motion will fall on a tie, if I am not mistaken.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you could ask Senator Adams what he wants to do. I think the decision rests with him, given my count of the room.
The Chairman: It sounds like you have the balance of power in the committee this morning, Senator Adams.
Senator Adams: You mentioned two other witnesses. There are people who say that Parks Canada never consulted them about the boundary. We can go up to December 1, but if we are to vote today, and if those other two witnesses will not be invited and heard, I will vote against the bill.
The Chairman: I should like to say something for the record. Senator Taylor, you may not have been in the city at the time, but you may recall the meeting I had in our office, and that a memo went from my office to yours suggesting that we would go to December 1 with respect to these additional witnesses. I would be happy to show you a copy of that memo. Nevertheless, that is not the issue.
I guess you have your answer, Senator Hays.
Senator Hays: Do you still want to proceed with a vote, Senator Taylor?
Senator Taylor: I gather, Senator Adams, that you want to have more hearings.
Senator Adams: Yes.
Senator Taylor: I will withdraw my motion.
The Chairman: On that basis, we will adjourn to December 1, at which time we will finalize our hearings on this matter.
The committee adjourned.