Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 1, 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 9:10 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. At this time, it is my pleasure to invite our witness, Mr. Jose Kusugak, to come forward. Mr. Kusugak is the president of the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. He has prepared a submission, which we have just received.
Please proceed.
Mr. Jose Kusugak, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: Honourable senators, I appreciate the accommodation of time that the committee has offered to me in order to appear before you.
You have heard many witnesses, including Ms Nellie Cournoyea, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.
The focus of your study involves a portion of the Inuvialuit area that is in the western part of what will become the Nunavut Territory on April 1, 1999. I am from the eastern part, Iqaluit, which will be the capital of Nunavut, but I have spent some time in the area around the proposed Tuktut Nogait National Park.
The general assembly of the Nunavut Tunngavik, the land claims organization, was greeted with a meteor shower a few weeks ago. It was like an incredible welcome. They know how to do their fireworks.
I should note as well that it is through the land claims agreement with the Canadian government and the Canadian people that the Inuit and Inuvialuit are proud to be caretakers of that region. As you are caretakers of your provinces and your part of Canada, so are the Inuit the caretakers of their area.
We do everything possible to ensure that we take care of our caribou, which is really our mainstay of food. One would not do anything to jeopardize the main source food. It is in that light that Ms Nellie Cournoyea spoke to you, and I speak to you in that vein this morning.
We cannot depend on government jobs. When the opportunities come to develop our lands and so on, we need to take advantage of them. At one time, before the land claims, when John Diefenbaker originally proposed the concept of Nunavut, the Inuit were totally opposed to development because they thought that developers would go up there and rape the land and leave.
Since the land claims, we have been able to develop committees and mining regimes to ensure that after the mining companies leave the land is left the way it was. It is a totally new era for development.
At the same time, we have not jeopardized or done anything to deplete our mainstay diet, which is the caribou on land, and seals in the sea and fish in the lake. We must take care of those elements.
I assure you that since we have been given back the responsibility of our land, and even before the Europeans came over to our part of the world and shared our land with us, we have been very aware of how to take care of the land.
I will now turn to my written submission, a copy of which you have in front of you. I will read it, following which I would be very pleased to try to answer some of your questions, if you have any.
The word "Tunngavik" means foundation, such as a housing foundation. "Nunavut" is translated to mean "our land"; therefore, our land foundation incorporated, in English. Our organization is responsible for the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, proclaimed into federal legislation more than five years ago, on July 9, 1993.
Our historic agreement, similar to the agreement with the Inuvialuit, followed many years of negotiations, during which time we carefully weighed the complex range of options that were available to us to help preserve our lands and way of life while at the same time giving us and our children hope for the future.
We have chosen to present our concerns and officially state that we support the changes to the western boundary of the Tuktut Nogait National Park and the amendments to Bill C-38 as requested by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Coincidentally, "Tuktut Nogait" means caribou and their calves.
We are hopeful that the Senate will not proceed with Bill C-38 in its present form. It appears that the Tuktut Nogait Park Agreement of 1996, which was established in good faith and contains provision under section 22.1 for review and possible amendment, is not being honoured by the federal government.
We have serious concerns surrounding the manner in which the Government of Canada seems to be dealing with the Inuvialuit, one of Nunavut's neighbours to the west.
I understand that the federal government is concerned that amending the western boundary of the proposed park will set a precedent that may open the door for boundaries of other national parks to be amended in favour of promoting economic development. In fact, the government's refusal to honour section 22.1 of the 1996 agreement and undertake a review of the western boundary of the proposed Tuktut Nogait National Park sends a signal that may cause the Inuit to be much more cautious about the creation of national parks within Nunavut.
It must be strongly emphasized that the Inuvialuit Park Agreement stipulates that Tuktut Nogait will be a co-management park. As Nellie Cournoyea stated to you on October 20:
Co-management parks are new in Canada and therefore Bill C-38 will set precedents in the way co-management principles are to be implemented.
She went on to say:
As the bill stands, the precedent is a bad one because Bill C-38, in this form and at this time overrides the Inuvialuit interest, and denies the accepted practice that the full consent of aboriginal people should be obtained before a park is established on their traditional lands.
It would be unfortunate if this signal from the government impeded the advancement and establishment of other proposed and future conservation areas within Nunavut. As an example, the proposed national park at Wager Bay, under which Inuit impacts and benefits negotiations are ongoing, is being closely scrutinized because of the potential to eliminate economic opportunities and benefits to Inuit and all Canadians. In the proposed Wager Bay park area there are caribou, polar bear, and probably the best Arctic char in Canada.
In addition, the establishment of the proposed Katannilik territorial park on South Baffin Island has been slowed until more information regarding economic opportunities has been made available. The easterly extension of Tuktut Nogait has already been slowed because of the precedent set by this government. The list of proposed parks and conservation areas to be established in Nunavut is quite lengthy. All land claims organizations are challenged each day by the mandate of promoting economic opportunity for our people while preserving lands for the wildlife upon which we depend daily.
As you may be aware, Parks Canada officials have approached the residents of Kugluktuk with requests to extend Tuktut Nogait National Park into Nunavut. It is my understanding that there is currently little support for this proposal as referenced in the draft West Kitimeot Land Use Plan prepared by the Nunavut Planning Commission in close consultation with the residents of Kugluktuk. Furthermore, it is my understanding that when the concept of establishing the park in Nunavut was raised at the Nunavut Planning Commission public hearing the concerns raised were not as much about the park as about the unwillingness of the federal government to support the earlier request of the Inuvialuit to request the western boundary changed.
Much of the argument used by the government in refusing to consider the proposed amendment to Bill C-38 is based on concern for caribou. I would therefore like to tell you some of our concerns about the caribou.
Caribou calving grounds within Nunavut comprise nearly 33 per cent of the land mass of the settlement area. On November 23, 1998, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, in consultation with the Government of Canada, the Northwest Territories, and both claimant and non-claimant groups took the lead on establishing the format of the western Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territory workshop, which will address the issue of managing development activities and mitigating the impact on caribou. The workshop will be based upon the concept of coexistence and will take place early in the new year. It is expected that all aboriginal groups within the western Northwest Territories and Nunavut territory, those truly dependant upon caribou as a food staple, will work together to address concerns regarding the impact of development on caribou in the calving, migrating and wintering grounds. It is expected that out of this workshop will come innovative ideas for how to manage the development activities in relation to caribou.
In addition, information gaps will be discussed and research priorities will be established. We are currently developing tools to protect caribou. For example, we are enhancing the caribou protection measures developed by the federal government in the 1970s. Our land claims agreement has made provision for the development of a cumulative effects monitoring system that would monitor and evaluate the impacts not only on caribou but also all wildlife and the environment.
The 1970 Caribou Protection Measures was developed because everyone other than Inuit thought the caribou were being depleted. However, we are talking about an incredible land mass. Every so often, the caribou wonder off to a totally different area. I am sure that God meant for that to happen, in order for the feeding grounds to regenerate. After some time, they return. After we were told that the caribou were being depleted, they returned by the hundreds of thousands. However, it was a message that we need caribou protection measures. It is good that the federal government developed the Caribou Protection Measures.
This system is being developed in partnership with the Nunavut Planning Commission and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Inuit are also concerned about controlling development around migrating routes and on wintering grounds. It is valuable to note that Inuit are working toward the development of tools that will ensure healthy caribou populations by researching ways to mitigate impacts on the entire range of the species, not only the calving grounds. Again, the identification of research projects and tools to manage these activities will be done in partnership with government, non-government organizations, industry, and the Inuvialuit, Inuit, Dene and Métis groups of northern Canada. The research initiatives and tools identified will take into consideration that the impacts of development need to be mitigated on the calving grounds along migration routes and in the wintering grounds. In short, the tools developed will minimize impacts on caribou while optimizing economic development opportunities.
I understand that in 1980 the Canadian government applied a great deal of political pressure to the American government during the review of a proposal to develop the Alaskan 1002 lands. This is the area located on the north slope of Alaska that comprises a large portion of the core calving ground of the Porcupine caribou herd.
It was believed that the impact of oil and gas exploration and development on the core calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd was too great. It is further understood that the position of the Canadian government, and others, to protect the calving habitat of the Porcupine herd in effect forced the Alaskan government to forgo important development opportunities in this area. The result was the establishment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which I am sure is a positive and necessary approach to protect the critical habitat of this particular herd. We believe, however, that the unique circumstances in one wildlife management area should not be arbitrarily applied to another for political reasons.
Nevertheless, it now appears that, because the government put forward a public position promoting the legislated protection of the caribou herd calving grounds in Alaska, it feels compelled, politically, to pressure Inuvialuit and Nunavut organizations to do the same. This pressure continues to be applied even though the Government of the Northwest Territories caribou biologists have stated that there is little similarity between the Porcupine herd and the herds of the western and Nunavut territories.
There appears to be no certainty in our part of Canada that the herd will calve in the same place year after year. Once further research has been conducted in this important area, it may ultimately prove impractical to continue established permanent, static conservation areas for calving grounds within Nunavut and the Inuvialuit settlement areas.
There is still much research to be done in this matter. Decisions made to protect caribou calving habitat based primarily on political image may produce unfortunate results for the government, as well as for the Inuvialuit and Inuit of northern Canada. Decisions made to preserve 400 square kilometres of habitat from potential development and thereby potentially eliminating economic and social benefits that may be available to a community need to be carefully weighed. We all want a healthy caribou population, but we also want healthy self-reliant communities.
It may be useful to note at this time that, if all identified caribou calving grounds within Nunavut were established as national parks, nearly 45 per cent of Nunavut would be dedicated to national parks and other conservation areas. That is a total of 855,000 square kilometres, which is almost as big as British Columbia.
In closing, I wish to say that Nunavut Tunngavik supports the recommendation of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to amend the western boundary of the Tuktut Nogait Park, which I understand will affect less than 2 per cent of the total area in question. Our moral support for the amendment to Bill C-38, which will result in a relatively minor change to the western boundary of the proposed park, is based upon a common past history and a common future vision that we share with the Inuvialuit.
Nunavut Tunngavik remains hopeful that Bill C-38 will not pass unless the western boundary is amended to reflect the request of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.
I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, senators. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
By the way, the Inuvialuit were part of our organization until around 1976. It was at that time that the Berger hearings concerning the proposed pipelines in the Western Arctic took place. The Inuvialuit were forced politically to settle their claims at that time, which is why there is an Inuvialuit Corporation. Also, the people of northern Quebec had to settle their claims because of the James Bay hydro project. That left the people of the Nunavut settlement areas, the Central Arctic and Baffin to take their time, because there was no forced development in that area. We finally settled in 1993. That is why there are the two different areas.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kusugak. We appreciate your being here and having come from such a long distance to present your brief.
Senator Adams: I should like to congratulate Mr. Kusugak. He has a tight schedule. He was here last week. He returned home last Friday and came back to Ottawa yesterday. It is a busy time for him in light of what will happen on April 1, 1999.
Before I arrived at the hearing today, I was listening to the news on the radio. I heard Jack Anawak, who was speaking in Edmonton last night. He has been travelling all across Canada to ensure that Canadians understand that Nunavut will be created on April 1, 1999.
I do not have many questions for the witness. I agree with everything he has said concerning the creation of Tuktut Nogait Park.
I believe there was a meeting with some of the organizations on November 23 at which was discussed the future of the mammals in Nunavut and the territories. Last week, we heard from the Minister of Fisheries; he was up in Iqaluit about three weeks ago and met with many organizations, including Nunavut Tunngavik and the Baffin Regional Council. They discussed the control of whales and seals, which have been controlled by Ottawa for over 100 years. We have lived with those animals all our lives, just like farmers who have cows and other animals. We do not want to start our new beginning fighting with the Government of Canada about the caribou.
Mr. Kusugak's organization, along with others, is concerned about the future of the mammals in Nunavut, the Inuvialuit area and even the High Arctic. A fine job has been done by those who have been working on caribou management in conjunction with the mining companies. We have those systems set up already.
We know that Parks Canada has done a good job with the community, and the organizations, starting with the Tuktut Nogait National Park. The caribou have been up there for many years. We did not name them "Bluenose caribou". We called caribou "caribou." Now we have Porcupine caribou.
Perhaps the witness could discuss the meeting that occurred on November 23. Who was involved in that meeting?
Mr. Kusugak: The man responsible for the development of our mining regime was at that meeting. He would normally be here to make this presentation, but he is in the Western Arctic while I am just straight north of here, three hours by air; so that is why I am here.
Because the Inuvialuit are of the Inuvialuit region and we are of the Nunavut region, if we had any concern about the impact of this proposal on the caribou of the Tuktut Nogait area, I would be speaking against the suggestions of the Inuvialuit region, because caribou is a staple of our diet. If I thought in any way that there was a danger of destroying that area for the caribou, I would be speaking against it. At the same time, we do the same thing in our area in all of our national park discussions. We are conservationists first. That is why we have the meetings that you are talking about, Senator Adams.
At one point we did not want any mining companies going into our areas at all. We held that position for years and years until there was a land claims agreement and we developed our impact review boards and so on. Now we are able to know, ourselves, that our areas will be kept sacred, as far as being kept clean and so on. At the same time, we cannot go on forever depending completely on the federal government. We developed the land claims to make use of the lands. That is why we are doing it. At the same time, animals are number one. That has always been our history. We do not do anything to jeopardize that.
Again, we are talking about national parks that, in the Nunavut area alone, are about the size of British Columbia. It is a huge area.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, it is not a big land area for the Inuvialuit agreement. According to a letter from Nellie Cournoyea, the park represents 29 per cent of the Inuvialuit land. The people will have to have jobs if they want to continue to live there. The Government of Canada took away about 29 per cent of the land in the Inuvialuit area. I am worried about what this will mean for the future of the people of Nunavut.
Senator Gustafson: You say that this park land is about the size of British Columbia. You indicate that the change you are asking for represents only a very small part, about 2 per cent. The concern I have is that you speak about further negotiations. I would think that it is very important to the Government of Canada and to your people to have good negotiations, to be on good speaking terms, to be able to cooperate in terms of future negotiations on land claims. As a member of this committee, I want to say that I think that you are not asking too much of the government to make a small compromise for the future of negotiations.
That is not a question, but a statement. If you wish to comment, please do.
Mr. Kusugak: Thank you, sir. My comment would be that for April 1, we have three older people developing what I call "communion of arrival" to Nunavut. Some of the language is talking as though they were caribou and saying that if the people want the caribou to provide good meat and good calves, that the people have to take good care of them. It is in that light that I want to assure the members of this committee that we do put a high priority on conservation. If there was any danger at all, as I said earlier, I would not be supporting the Inuvialuit area. However, I understand it is a small area that they want to change. Senator Adams said earlier that the caribou are not always in that area. They have a big migrating area. They do not always necessarily calve in the same area year after year.
The Chairman: If I may intervene at this point, you have given us very recent information. Just last week, you are telling us, a group came together to arrange some hearings early next year to examine the caribou herd. Is that right? You say that, on November 23, just last week, an agreement was made between the Government of Canada, the Northwest Territories and the affected groups to examine the caribou herd and determine what can be done for their continuation and preservation. You also said that you will be meeting early next year. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. Kusugak: Yes. I personally was not there, because my portfolio is economic development, training, and the administration of Nunavut Tunngavik. Our people who are responsible for lands and wildlife, and so on, are in the other region, and they went to that meeting. The actual content of what they talked about is not something I can speak to here, but I assure you that that is exactly what we do.
We also talk about it on the international level during meetings of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Internationally, they keep a good log of the 50-year cycle. They document what is happening not only to caribou but also to cod and to seals, and so on. It is quite a comprehensive log about the cycle of animals and seasons. We are not surprised when we hear either that stocks are being depleted or that there are more of them, because it is a well-kept log.
The Chairman: Was Parks Canada involved in the determination of any of these meetings that you are having, or was it just Indian and Northern Affairs Canada?
Mr. Kusugak: Are you talking about the meeting last week?
The Chairman: Yes, the decision that was made last week. Do you know whether or not Parks Canada had any input or any knowledge about it?
Mr. Kusugak: I cannot tell you that. I was not there personally, but I can certainly find out.
The Chairman: We can ask the minister when he is here later this morning.
If this study group determined that the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou was within this area on the western boundary of the park and this area was used as calving grounds, would your view change from what you have said to us today?
Mr. Kusugak: I was there when the biologists told us that caribou were being depleted by overhunting in Keewatin. Senator Adams was there at the time. There was a real difference in what the biologists were saying. I have never set foot in the actual proposed park, but the Inuvialuit are there. I place a lot of belief in them because their priority is to have the caribou herds sustained. I know the people of Inuvialuit. I have worked with them since the 1970s, when I was 20 years old. I was sent to the Western Arctic, in the Inuvialuit region, to do a land use and occupancy study. They were just like us in the Eastern Arctic. If they thought they would jeopardize the calving grounds, I am sure they would not be here to make a presentation to change the boundary. I firmly believe that.
The Chairman: Are you in negotiations now from the Eastern Arctic with respect to the boundaries of this park? We heard that an extension is being proposed. I take it you are in some negotiations to enter a co-management agreement relative to those lands. Is that true?
Mr. Kusugak: That is right. That would be located in the western part of Nunavut. Interest has been expressed not only by the Inuit of our area but also by the Dene Indians. It is more of a tripartite interest in Tuktut Nogait Park.
The Chairman: You are telling us that you are now suspicious of the federal government because of the way they are dealing with this agreement regarding your entry into agreements now.
Mr. Kusugak: Yes, in the different negotiations that we are having on the national parks. When we develop national parks, we take a big amount. We do not say, "This can be developed." We are suggesting that we can harvest the animals found in the national parks for consumption, or whatever. We do not put signs there saying, "No trespassing or hunting", because we still need to harvest them at times so that there is no overpopulation of a certain species.
Our vegetable growth up North is not the same as down here in the South. You can grow animal food here in just about every season. The growing rate is very fast. Up there, once the animals eat those things, they do not grow back for years. The animals then move on to somewhere else to allow the area to continue to grow. If you had been in Iqaluit during the last two years, you would have seen caribou right in town. They have eaten all the vegetation that was available to them so they have left for about the next seven years or so to allow the vegetation to mature. The caribou do this. It is hard to say, "This is a park and this is where the animals will be," because they will go to a different location. That is beyond our control. That is what God does to provide for that area to grow back. We call it an area for parks because of the calving, and so on, but it does not necessarily happen just there.
Senator Spivak: According to some of the witnesses who were here from the mining company, they say that they will mine whether or not there are seven hot spots. This is just one of them. They can mine and do whatever they have to without needing that.
Senator Taylor is not here, but he is a mining expert. He says that they do not know. In the meantime, they can go ahead and explore all the other areas and see what happens. I am sure you are aware of that. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Kusugak: That is the "old boys" mentality. Before the land claims agreements, that is exactly what it was like. We stopped the polar gas pipeline proposals, and the use of tankers throughout polar areas, and so on. The Inuit have had no say in how we develop impact agreements. We did not have mining regimes, and so on. If it was true that mining companies could go there and rip apart the area and then leave; there would be no need for Ms Cournoyea to ask me to make a mutual presentation here. Furthermore, there would be no need for me to come here to make this suggestion to you today, if I thought that there was no point in my doing so because they would be developing this area anyway.
We are in negotiation with mining companies. We go down and plead with them to come up at times to look at our areas. It was not like that some years ago, but we are now in total control concerning how to develop or not to develop these areas.
Senator Spivak: The company says in their presentation to us that it is still their intention to honour all their obligations to the Inuvialuit, and they can do that working on the 80 per cent that is outside the park. I am just telling you what the company said before this committee. I will leave it at that.
Senator Hays: Following up on what Senator Spivak has said, according to testimony that we have heard, the western boundary of the park is intended to include land from the Nunavut territory; particularly from beyond Caribou Lake. You may not be aware of the status of that negotiation; however, if you are, I would be interested to know what it is, and whether it is at an early stage, dealing with the issue of the mineralized area within the park that the Inuvialuit wishes to be excluded. I am interested in any information or comment you may have on the status of the negotiations and whether negotiations have occurred since the changed position of the Inuvialuit on the eastern boundary.
Mr. Kusugak: Later this morning, I will call my vice-president in that area, who is dealing with the mining and parks people, and I will give you that information, sir.
Senator Hays: Thank you. I may have had the east and west boundaries mixed up. It is the eastern boundary that is in issue. Thank you.
Mr. Kusugak: We call it Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you, sir, for coming and sharing your views. It was important for us to hear you.
Our next witness is the Mr. Andy Mitchell, Secretary of State (Parks).
Mr. Minister, thank you for attending the meeting this morning. We appreciate your being here yet again. This being the end of our hearings, we expect to finish today and move along with your bill. I might say that we also appreciate the fact that you have been following the hearings, have corresponded and been very much involved.
If you wish to make some comments before my colleagues ask questions, please do so.
The Honourable Andy Mitchell, Secretary of State (Parks): I appreciate the opportunity to come back to the committee and talk to you again. This is my third occasion in front of this committee this fall. It is like meeting old friends.
Honourable senators, I hope that today will indeed mark the conclusion of what has been an exhaustive review process, the legislation having been in front of Parliament for about eight or nine months. In that time we have had the opportunity to look at the issues surrounding the establishment of the park -- issues that already existed when the park was established by agreement in 1996. Moreover, we had a lengthy and thorough discussion on the impact of the current legislation as it may roll out at the end of 1998.
Today, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about what I believe to be the crux of the issue. On the one hand, I believe that there are risks entailed in changing the boundaries, and I will take a moment in my testimony to enunciate what I believe to be those risks. On the other hand, there is a perception that the Inuvialuit would lose economically if the boundaries were not adjusted. It is those two basic issues that I think are before the committee at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I believe there are three specific and real potential negative consequences to changing the boundaries. I have talked to this committee before about them and to some members of the committee individually.
First, I believe that there will be a compromising of the core calving grounds; second is the issue of the integrity of that park; and third is the issue of Canada's international situation vis-à-vis the 1002 lands controlled by Alaska and the United States. I will take a minute to touch on each one of those issues.
As the evidence shows, one of the key objectives of the Inuvialuit and others in establishing Tuktut Nogait National Park is to provide some protection to the core calving grounds of the caribou herd. In proposing changes to the boundaries of the park, some have suggested that the area being requested would not have any impact on those calving grounds. The reality, though, is quite different.
This committee called a biologist, John Nagy, to this committee. From reading Mr. Nagy's testimony, it is clear that he believes the area is well within the core calving grounds of the caribou. In his testimony, Mr. Nagy stated:
Approximately 75 per cent of the core area falls within the Tuktut Nogait National Park.
He went on to explain:
The area proposed for exclusion is important because it falls within the known pre-calving, calving and post-calving range of the herd. Caribou that use that area, and their habitat, should be given some level of protection.
It is interesting to note that none of the witnesses who have appeared have challenged Mr. Nagy's particular testimony on this point.
I believe that there can be no doubt that a policy that includes the protection of the caribou herd needs to include the boundaries that were established in 1996 in order to be effective.
It is also interesting -- and I would be happy it table this, although it may already be tabled -- that two of the signatories to the agreement, the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the IRC, wrote a letter to Minister Copps' predecessor back in 1994 stating:
Darnley Bay's permits encompass Crown lands and Inuvialuit private lands within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region both within and to the west of the proposed park. The permits encompass some of the key resources of the proposed park, including the canyons of the Brock and Hornaday Rivers, and La Ronclere Falls. They also encompass that part of the core calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou herd within the ISR. Clearly, back in 1994 the view of both the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Inuvialuit Game Council, the two signatories to the agreement, was that the core calving grounds were included in that particular area.
The second negative consequence relates to risking the integrity of the national parks system by setting a dangerous precedent of changing park boundaries after a park agreement has been signed specifically to accommodate resource exploration. In addition to Tuktut Nogait, seven other parks have agreed-upon boundaries, but they are not yet scheduled under the National Parks Act. Adjusting the agreed-to boundaries to Tuktut could leave these other parks vulnerable to requests to change park boundaries to accommodate resource exploration and extraction.
Senators, that is a real worry. There are resource possibilities in several of the parks listed in that area. To accommodate a change in boundaries to allow for resource extraction in one area could certainly lend itself to a resource company in another area making the point that: "If you are willing to do it in one area, why are you not willing to do it in another?"
The third negative consequence that I believe could flow from a change in the boundaries is that we would be acting in a manner that is not consistent with the federal government's enunciated policy of discouraging the United States from allowing resource extraction in the 1002 lands in Alaska, which include the core calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. The Prime Minister spoke clearly and consistently over the years in urging the government of the United States to protect the calving grounds in Alaska of the transboundary Porcupine caribou herd. It is essential that we display consistent protection of our caribou habitat in Canada if we are to have any credibility with the Americans in insisting that they protect the critical caribou habitat under their jurisdiction. Clearly, our actions must match our rhetoric.
I will go back to that same letter because it also addressed the 1002 lands issue. This again is from the game council and the regional corporation. It states:
The issuance of these permits is inconsistent with the Federal Government's position that there be no oil and gas development on the calving grounds of the 1002 lands in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
Even back in 1994, both of those groups, who were signatories to the agreement, understood the international implications of protecting core calving grounds and how it would affect our position vis-à-vis the 1002 lands in Alaska.
Honourable senators, those are what I believe to be the negative consequences that would flow out of a change in the boundaries.
The other side of the argument is that the Inuvialuit would suffer if the boundary changes are not made. During the committee, there has been much discussion that the consequences would not be significant. The consequences that I have just enunciated were not significant when weighed against the need to provide economic opportunity for the Inuvialuit. I do not fully share that assessment, because it does not accurately reflect existing circumstances. I say this because, even if the boundaries remain as currently drawn, the Inuvialuit will, as they presently do, receive economic value for the mineral resources that lie outside the park. There is a debate as to exactly how much that economic activity would be worth, but I think it is clear that economic value is flowing now and will continue to flow.
As senators are aware, there is a 1995 concession agreement between the Inuvialuit and Darnley Bay Resources. These benefits will continue whether the park boundary is changed or not. The concession agreement was not signed contingent on a change in the boundaries. In fact, the concession agreement was signed after the land withdrawal when the company knew that any area of high mineral potential that had been identified in the withdrawn lands, and would potentially be inside the park, would not be available for mining. They clearly knew that that land had been withdrawn. Despite that, they entered into the concession agreement with the Inuvialuit.
According to information released publicly by Darnley Bay Resources through their web page, they have indicated a specific dollar amount they had intended, or intend, to flow to the Inuvialuit. They talk about $820,000 between October of 1995 and September of 1998, and a potential $1 million to be payable later in 1998. They also refer to an administration fee of $100,000, plus $48 per square kilometre that would be under exploration. In addition, the Inuvialuit are entitled to become a joint venture partner of 35 per cent of any exploration that would take place.
I think the testimony from resource companies clearly stated that benefits will continue to flow to the Inuvialuit regardless of whether the boundary is adjusted or not. Mining representatives before the committee indicated clearly that the 80 per cent of the anomaly which is outside the park has the highest potential and that they are prepared to explore, develop and consequently employ local people based on the 80 per cent currently available to them.
Mr. Lawyer of Darnley Bay Resources stated, and I will quote from his testimony:
...we would select the best areas in which to drill. We already know that the one that is modelling out to be nearest the surface is the one closest to Paulatuk.
Paulatuk is west of the park.
We will be applying for permits to drill there initially because it is nearest the surface. It is the most westerly one.
Representatives from Darnley Bay Resources and Falconbridge have stated that their intention to proceed with exploration in the area is in no way contingent on the park boundaries being changed. Mr. Prince of Falconbridge stated that if the people of Canada decide to keep a portion of it -- the anomaly -- in the park, that will not stop them from proceeding with the rest of their exploration program. This was confirmed in subsequent testimony by Mr. Allen of Darnley Bay Resources.
Before taking questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the issue of compromise. It has been suggested that removal of 2.5 per cent of the park would represent a small yet reasonable compromise. I wish to make it clear that a significant compromise has already been achieved. The agreement signed in 1996 includes the boundary that is a compromise between conservation and development, between protection of the core calving ground and exploration for new mineral wealth.
The boundary of this national park represents a compromise between the objectives of the Inuvialuit and those of the federal government, a compromise that was achieved following seven years of consultation and negotiation leading to the agreement in 1996. No party achieved 100 per cent of its objectives, but all the parties signed the agreement. That is what the art of compromise is all about.
The national park does not include 100 per cent of the core calving ground, nor does it include the complete watershed of the Hornaday River or any coastal lands. Government negotiators made compromises on all of these matters and a balance was achieved.
The recent request by the Inuvialuit, made some two years after the agreement was signed, would result in 100 per cent of the anomaly being outside the national park but would reduce the portion of the core calving grounds that is inside the national park. That is not a balance and that is certainly not a compromise.
Any boundary change reducing Tuktut Nogait National Park would incur the negative consequences that I enunciated at the beginning of my presentation without guaranteeing any additional economic benefit to the Inuvialuit. The reality is that these mining benefits, clearly indicated by the company, will continue because the company will continue its exploration and development regardless of whether the boundary is changed.
I hope I have clarified the federal government's position on this matter and I hope I have been able to address some of the concerns that have been expressed to the committee or by the committee during testimony over the last several weeks.
I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the committee on its hard work and diligence in examining this issue.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We appreciate your comments.
Senator Cochrane: We have been waiting a decade for legislation like this to formally establish Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland, and there are other designated parks across this country in the same situation. This agreement to create Tuktut Nogait was reached only two years ago.
All the witnesses from whom we have heard do not want this to go ahead at this time. Why is the government in a rush to have this legislation passed when it is apparently in no rush with regard to the other parks?
Mr. Mitchell: I am in a rush to have protection for all of our parks. As we are able to resolve the issues in a particular park, we will proceed.
The seven years of negotiation leading up to the 1996 agreement was done with a view to bringing the land under the protection of the National Parks Act. There were numerous and significant issues on the table from the first discussions in 1989 until we reached the agreement in 1996. Those issues were dealt with one at a time. In 1996, everyone was satisfied that their objectives would be achieved and everyone was willing to sign on the dotted line. As a result, we were able to bring in this legislation.
The process for establishing this park is somewhat different from the process we used in the past. In this case, we ensured that the local people were on side, and we will do that in all cases in the future. They must be part of the negotiations and part of the agreement.
When we reached an agreement in 1996, the six parties were satisfied that this national park be established. In negotiations on other national parks we have not reached the point where we can sign a parks agreement because the parties are not yet satisfied. The position of Parks Canada on that is clear. We will enter into a parks agreement and establish that park when all parties are comfortable with it.
In the Tuktut Nogait situation, all the parties were comfortable. All the issues were addressed to their satisfaction and they signed the agreement. With the other parks, there are still issues outstanding with the local communities.
Senator Cochrane: As we have heard, the people were not aware that this anomaly existed within the boundary of the proposed park and that it would bring jobs to the local people. That is the issue now.
Mr. Mitchell: Senator, I have great difficulty accepting that, because the geological survey that was done in 1994 indicated that there was a medium-to-high mineral potential in the anomaly and that the anomaly existed within the park. That is on the record. Darnley Bay, at the request of the Inuvialuit, said that they would voluntarily withdraw. As I said previously, we do not consider land for a national park only once all the resources have been used up; we believe that it is important to protect our natural heritage and we will exercise that protection by way of national parks.
The evidence is that the medium-to-high mineral potential has been known since 1994 and that the parties were willing to make it a national park despite that. No one hid the fact of high mineral potential in that area. In fact, 80 per cent of the anomaly and, according to the testimony of the mining companies before this committee, probably the best 80 per cent, lies outside the park and the Inuvialuit will have an opportunity to participate with those companies in the exploration and development and the economic benefits that will flow therefrom.
Senator Cochrane: As you just mentioned, the mining companies told us that the companies intend to proceed with exploration outside the park boundaries, even if Bill C-38 is passed. However, they have also said that they believe the most promising anomaly for exploration is inside the park boundary. Would Parks Canada and your government be agreeable to a compromise?
Mr. Mitchell: Senator, we are always amenable to a compromise. We worked for seven years to strike the present compromise. It entailed making 80 per cent of the anomaly available, and 20 per cent was to be included in the park. Quite frankly, the vision that Parks Canada is out there in the North gobbling up great mineral potential is just wrong. My goodness, we are looking at protection for national parks of between 2 and 3 per cent. That means that 97 per cent is not under the protection of national parks. We are not gobbling up land. We worked for seven years to come up with that reasonable compromise.
You said that the company said that the best potential was the one within the park. I would like some clarification on that, because my reading of the testimony is that the best item they have right now is the one nearest Paulatuk, which is to the west of the park, and that seems to be working out to be the closest to the surface; but I may be misinformed on that.
Senator Cochrane: The companies made an aerial survey and they noted this anomaly of particular interest to them, but it is not necessarily the companies that want this boundary change. It is the people. It is the people who see the advantages, not necessarily the companies. The companies have said they will go ahead with exploration outside the boundaries.
This is my compromise: Let the companies go ahead with exploration and drilling outside the park boundaries -- they will do that anyway -- but if those areas prove not to be economically viable or sound or profitable, then allow them to explore and develop the sites inside the park. Could we amend Bill C-38 to allow this to go ahead?
Mr. Mitchell: You have the power to do so, as does the House, but I would not support it, just as I would not support a forestry company that came to me today and said, "We have taken a look at Puckasaw National Park in Ontario, and the timber stands in there are immensely valuable. The price of timber has just skyrocketed. The economic opportunity for northern Ontario is enormous if you just let us cut in the park." My answer would be, "No, I will not allow that."
Senator Adams: Your brief sounds like a broken record. Not much has changed with the concern about Tuktut Nogait Park. Senator Cochrane asked questions about the boundaries and what I heard, I think, was that the equipment that was available at the time the magnetic survey was done was not really accurate. What do you understand about that?
Mr. Mitchell: My understanding, senator, is that the geological survey in 1994 was capable of doing mineral assessments that provided reasonable results. Technology always changes and things are enhanced. I am not an expert in mineral exploration, although there is an expert on this committee.
Senator Adams: What I heard from Darnley Bay Resources was that the equipment being used was 23 years old. Is that approximately the age of the equipment?
Mr. Mitchell: Senator, I understand what your saying, but I do not believe the issue is whether or not their equipment was good or whether they came up with an accurate survey. The point is that the information that had been given to the Inuvialuit in 1986, whether it was right or wrong -- and I believe it was right -- was that it was medium to high. Maybe it was wrong but that was what they were told. Knowing that it was medium to high, they made a conscious decision to allow that 20 per cent of the anomaly to go into the park. If the information turned out to be faulty, that is a different issue, but, clearly, they made the decision in 1996 knowing the existence of the mineral potential. They came to a willing agreement with the Government of Canada and the others to put that under the protection of a national park, knowing what that survey information provided in 1994.
As to the shallowness of it, which is the issue Ms Cournoyea discussed at some length, Mr. Lawyer of Darnley Bay said that generally from the west they are shallower and progressively deeper to the east. What Darnley Bay Resources is saying is that the closer you are to Paulatuk outside the park, the shallower the anomaly appears to be, and as you proceed eastward toward the park and then eventually into the park, the anomaly appears to be deeper. That is the opinion of experts in the field. At least, I am assuming Darnley Bay has that expertise. It is their business. They themselves said to the committee that the stuff nearest the surface is the stuff outside the park and closest to Paulatuk.
Senator Adams: Do you have any idea of what percentage of the Inuvialuit land has been taken over by Parks Canada?
Mr. Mitchell: None, is my understanding. That is all federal Crown land. The Inuvialuit land itself was not included in the park.
Senator Adams: My information was that Parks Canada has already taken about 29 per cent of the Inuvialuit land.
Mr. Mitchell: I am not following you, senator.
Senator Adams: Parks Canada already has 30 per cent of the Inuvialuit area. Was there never any concern expressed before this as to the percentage that Parks Canada was to take out of the Inuvialuit region rather than looking into other areas?
Mr. Mitchell: You make an excellent point. Back in 1989, the Inuvialuit had not sent us a request asking for the establishment of that park in that area. However if they had said in 1996, "You have taken too much from us; we do not want any more to be taken," which would be unusual because they are good stewards of the lands, then we would not have proceeded. However, as I understand it from the record, that is not the reality of what took place. The reality is that the Inuvialuit themselves came to the government in 1989 and asked us to establish the park. We did not go to them.
Back in 1996, after seven years of negotiation, they voluntarily signed the agreement. It is not a case of Parks Canada gobbling up their territory. We did it at their request. After seven years of negotiations, they signed the agreement. I have difficulty with the suggestion that we are gobbling up their land.
Senator Adams: There has been a lot of talk that the Government of Canada is refusing to recognize section 22.1 of the agreement. This morning Jose Kusugak was very concerned about that. If you come into Nunavut and start creating parks, like the one at Wager Bay, without consulting the local people, we will end up with the same problem again.
Mr. Mitchell: If the committee is not aware of this, I can tell you that Parks Canada is presently under significant discussions and negotiations with the Inuit of the Wager Bay area. I have said publicly, and I will say publicly again, that we will only establish a park in Wager Bay if we have the agreement of the aboriginal peoples who are there. I will make this clear as well: When they come to an agreement with us and we sign an agreement with them about what the park should be, then that is what we will expect the park to be.
We are not at that stage in Wager Bay. We are at the stage where we were in this park prior to 1996. Everything is on the table, and we are attempting to come to a consensus. Parks Canada has shown that it is willing to and requires itself to negotiate prior to signing a parks agreement with the local aboriginal community to ensure that they are comfortable. We are only saying this: "Let us keep those negotiations going as long as you want; we will discuss anything you want; we will consider anything you put on the table; we may not agree to it all, but we will consider it. Once we strike a compromise and once we sign a parks agreement, then we expect all the parties to adhere to it unless there is an agreement amongst all the parties that it should be reopened.
Senator Adams: Do you have a buffer zone in the national park?
Mr. Mitchell: No. We do not have under the National Parks Act the ability to establish a buffer zone. You may have those happen informally where a provincial or territorial jurisdiction could put some protection on land that is adjacent to a park. I would encourage my territorial and provincial counterparts to do that.
Senator Adams: From my information, a strict buffer zone could be 10 or 20 miles from the boundary. Then we would never get close to the park. They are talking about exploring at the edge of their park. If you had a buffer zone, you could regulate for 20 or 30 miles.
Mr. Mitchell: We do not have a buffer zone. In fact, I use the Puckasaw example again. They are lumbering and harvesting timber right up to the boundary of the park. In Manitoba at Riding Mountain, you can see agricultural activity going right to the boundary of the park. The park from the air looks like an island within the vast prairie. There are no buffer zones.
Senator Butts: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I just have one question which I will try to make very specific.
You have said that Darnley Bay will go ahead on the 80 per cent, if that is what they have, and that they have promised jobs to the local people. On top of that, there should be jobs in the park. We have heard some confusion here over whether the federal government has promised or has perhaps spent -- I do not know which -- $10 million dollars for two jobs. I would like to get that straightened out.
Could you project how much money the federal government will invest in this project and proportionately how many jobs might be created on top of the mining jobs?
Mr. Mitchell: I know that Senator Adams is very eloquent about making the $10-million-to-two-jobs comparison.
Senator Butts: It would be wonderful if you got one job for $5 million.
Mr. Mitchell: Although we want to see the establishment of the park result in jobs, let us consider all the factors. Yes, it will cost $10 million to establish the park, but we do not spend that money solely for the jobs that will be created. We do it because we believe it is important to provide protection of the ecosystem that exists in that particular park, and because it should be representative of the region in which it is established.
If we were part of HRDC and were solely into a job-creation project, then the senator would be absolutely right, and he should be going to the minister of HRDC and saying, "You spent $10 million on two jobs in a job-creation program." There certainly would be something to be said. However, this is not a job-creation program. It will result in the creation of some jobs, and I am happy about that, but the money being invested there is being invested to protect that particular natural environment and the ecosystem there and to ensure that we have a representative example of that particular region in Canada.
There will be dollars spent there and jobs will go to local folks, but Senator Adams is quite right; it is not a panacea for the Inuvialuit or the people of Paulatuk. There will not be streets paved with gold and two cars in every garage. That just will not happen simply because of the park. However, it will be an addition to the economic activity up there.
As well, and this is something that needs to be considered on the economic side, 80 per cent of that anomaly is outside the park. The companies have indicated clearly that they will be moving in that area. They are already spending money in that area, and they will continue to spend money there with the park established exactly the way it is proposed.
To deal with the $10-million issue, one must understand what that money is being spent on. As I have said, it is not strictly a job-creation program, but some economic activity will flow out of it. We have spent close to $1 million this past summer. We have hired local folks involved in that. We are committed to doing that. Just as the mining companies have made a commitment to the local population to work with them to create economic activity that benefits the Inuvialuit, so too in Parks, in signing our agreements with the Inuvialuit, we want them to participate in whatever economic activity we are able to generate.
Senator Butts: If you were going to pave the streets with gold, I would have asked you to make the whole of Cape Breton a park.
Senator Gustafson: Mr. Minister, you laid out three specific areas of concern, one suggesting that you have made a compromise. On that, I would suggest that they are asking for a very small compromise. I feel very strongly about this. I come from a rural area. As farmers, we are looking at a shrinking population in rural areas. The political reality is that we should be worrying about the concrete jungle expanding and about environmental issues. We should get serious about these issues. These people are asking for a small compromise. As indicated by the former witness, the parks and conservation areas encompass a total of 85,000 square kilometres, almost the size of British Columbia. That is a fair estimate.
On your second point about setting a dangerous precedent, I believe you are setting a dangerous precedent by not cooperating with the people in this area. All you need to do is look at the situation. I heard the premier of B.C. this morning in debate with the leader of the opposition there, and it is obvious that the situation that exists there today is severe. I believe we need to give serious consideration to how we deal with these people and not just be the "heavy hand of Ottawa", as it were. The compromise may well be very important.
Your third concern is with the global approach, acknowledging the stance of the Americans, who are saying, "This is what we want. This is our agreement. The Canadians are not living up to their part of the agreement." If you wish to look at that kind of expansion in the U.S. and what they are doing there, I believe we stand up pretty well in comparison.
What is the Alaskan situation? How much ground are they giving up in the State of Alaska?
Mr. Mitchell: Senator, as you may be aware, I represent a very rural area in Ontario.
Senator Gustafson: I was a member of Parliament for 14 years and a parliamentary secretary for nine of those years. Something happens to ministers who are appointed. If I were protected, as a minister -- that is, as a bureaucrat -- I would toe the line. I would read all the material and get very involved in this. I am sure that you have read more of the material that comes from the bureaucracy than you have the material that comes from the native people. That is the problem that I have with the whole operation. It is time that this committee woke up and realized that there is another part of Canada that needs some consideration here.
Mr. Mitchell: First, I would take some umbrage to the suggestion that I lose my credibility as a parliamentarian, as an individual and in terms of my belief simply because I have been appointed to the ministry. I take exception to that. I am quite capable of enunciating what I believe and forming my own opinions whether or not I am a member of the ministry, in which I am quite proud and pleased to serve.
Senator Gustafson: I have seen many cases of the opposite position.
Mr. Mitchell: I was saying that I represent a rural constituency. The riding of Parry Sound--Muskoka is about as rural as you get in Ontario. My predecessor is still active in the riding and we do many things together.
Let us take a situation in my riding. We have some of the most beautiful freshwater lakes in Canada and we have a national park in that area. We are under significant pressures there. Our national park in Muskoka is Georgian Bay Island National Park. There are eight million people within a seven-hour drive and it does not take much for one potential cottager to come up into our area and say, "Give me 100 feet of Beausoleil Island. That is all I want. You have a big island there. Give me 100 feet and I will build my cottage there. I will be happier than I could ever be in my whole life." That sounds like a small compromise. They are only asking for a hundredth of 1 per cent of Beausoleil Island National Park in order to build a cottage. The same pressures exist there.
I was chairman of the Natural Resource Committee of the House of Commons and dealt with many of the issues that you deal with here. In 1986, I travelled across Canada doing a report on rural Canada and the concerns and the challenges of rural Canadians. I understand that well. I exercised my portfolio with that knowledge.
As for cooperating with aboriginal and First Nations groups, we spent seven years on this particular part, negotiating with them and coming to an agreement that they signed. Parks Canada paid for it, at their request, so that they would have proper counsel and proper advice going through this process. We actually helped them negotiate with us and we paid the cost. They chose who they wanted to represent them, but we paid for it. We are negotiating with the Nunavut at Wager Bay. Every one of our parks establishments that we are attempting to undertake in the North clearly demonstrates our willingness to negotiate.
As I said in my comments, we are not talking about not coming to a compromise. We spent seven years coming to a compromise that all parties signed in 1996. I am simply saying that now that we have come to that compromise and have reached an agreement, let us stick to it and implement it.
We will avoid the negative consequences by maintaining the boundaries and the Inuvialuit will be able to obtain economic benefit from the 80 per cent of the anomaly that is outside the park. They are getting benefits now and the companies have stated that without a change in the boundaries, they will continue to work in that area. The companies have said clearly that the part of the anomaly that is closest to the west, closest to Paulatuk, is the one that is closest to the surface. As you move into the park, it goes deeper. They say that probably the best economic potential is the portion that is located outside the park. Given that, I believe it is appropriate to move forward and pass Bill C-38 as it is.
Senator Gustafson: You used several examples of compromise. I wish to use one. Today, gun control and the registration and implementation of that legislation is in effect. I wish to tell you that I was in the North where I listened to native people and to three, if not four, provinces that wanted some slight compromise on that piece of legislation. I understand that there is quite a difference between Montreal's thinking about the use of firearms and Toronto's, and so on. Someone who comes from a rural riding knows how deep that feeling was, yet there was absolutely no compromise in dealing with the native people on that issue. They saw their guns simply as a tool. They use guns in the same way that I use a tool, like a tractor, on my farm. That is their way of life. This was simply a political decision. The government felt that the numbers were on their side, so they decided to implement that legislation.
That is similar to the issue before us today. I feel strongly about that. I have listened to Senator Adams make invaluable contributions to this committee, which come from a lifetime of experience. Other witnesses have done the same, yet I see no effort to give on the part of the government. There is simply a political direction to move straight ahead with their game plan, without changes.
Mr. Mitchell: We will have a discussion about firearms legislation in a different forum. I do not relate Bill C-68 from the last Parliament to Bill C-38, which is before this committee today. You and I can have a debate about gun control later. I do not believe this committee is the correct forum for that.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Senator Adams and the things that he tries to do. I consider him to be not only my colleague but also my friend.
Senator Buchanan: I agree with you about the importance of protecting the ecosystem and the environment and I would be very upset if, for instance, they wanted to change the boundaries of Cape Breton National Park. They tried that and we vehemently opposed it in the 1980s. However, I find it difficult to compare that area with the North, particularly when you are looking at approximately 2 per cent of the whole park area. That 2 per cent could create quite a few jobs in the area, which they will not have if they are not able to develop that small 2.5 per cent of that mineral resource. I am told that in addition to those two jobs, you are looking at many other jobs that could be created if they developed that 2.5 per cent. We are looking at a small area compared to the total area, and I do not see how that would affect the ecosystem of the North.
Having said that, I am concerned that we have heard from the Government of the Northwest Territories, who want this amendment; the Inuvialuit, who want this amendment; the Nunavut Tunngavik, who want this amendment; and the Darnley Bay people, who also want the amendment.
Senator Adams: The Inuvialuit own the land.
Senator Buchanan: Many others who have appeared to want this amendment wish to protect the ecosystem, but that 2.5 per cent really will not do any great damage.
Suppose that this was not 1998 but 1996 and that the aerial surveys that took place in 1997 had taken place in 1996, showing back then that a very important mineral target would be in your proposed park. Would you not have excluded that 2.5 per cent?
Mr. Mitchell: I cannot say whether it would have been excluded. However, I suspect that the Inuvialuit would have put on the table their desire to have that area excluded. They would have indicated a number of reasons. Then, depending on the government's response, they would have said: "We cannot come to an agreement; we cannot sign an agreement. There will not be a park." That is not what took place; instead, as I mentioned in my brief, a compromise was reached.
When you look at the map of the park you see that it does not go out to the ocean. The park was drawn back because they did not want that. Parts of the headwaters were not included. That is why it is hard to say what would have been the particular response at that time. Prior to the agreement, there would have had to be a signatory to the agreement. It would have been discussed and negotiated, and it would have been a part of the process taking place in Darnley Bay.
There are negative consequences. Mining companies will continue to explore 80 per cent of the anomaly, thus creating jobs. That is real. However, nobody knows whether 2.5 per cent will make any difference to the economic activity generated by the mining companies. The evidence here is that they are willing to go without that. They have clearly stated in their testimony that the stuff closest to the surface is the stuff furthest outside the park. We are not in a situation where if you do not change the 2.5 per cent, no mining activity will go on. The mining activity is continuing today and statements from the mining companies indicate that they will continue with the exploration. On the other hand, the negative outcomes I mentioned will occur.
The Chairman: What we are discussing today could be totally academic, since there could be nothing there. On the other, optimistic, hand, you could have one of the largest deposits in the world. We heard from the mining companies that the strongest anomaly may or may not be in the park. We have also heard that they will never know if the anomaly that has the motherload is in the park, because once we pass this legislation that will be the end of it and they will never have the opportunity to know.
What bothers me, Mr. Minister, is this rush in dealing with it and the allegation of bad faith. If I had entered into this agreement and had seen something that said that any party could request a review by the parties of part or all of the agreement, I would have felt that I could at any time, if circumstances changed, go back to the federal government and ask them to take another look at this. We have heard that circumstances have changed dramatically since 1996. We have heard that $800,000 has been spent and it is believed that there is much more there than they had originally envisioned. The people in the area are now meeting to look at calving grounds and to get a better understanding of it. They will also be meeting early in the new year.
Those are matters relevant to what is in front of us today. I do not understand your unwillingness to take those matters into consideration so that they can be discussed and reviewed. If I were convinced for a moment that we were going to harm the core calving grounds, I would vote against that boundary change in a second. Frankly, that is not what I hear from the people who live there. Why are you in such a rush? Why are you so anxious to move this through? Why do you refuse to let the matter be reviewed as per your undertaking in this agreement, when five of the six parties wish it to happen?
Mr. Mitchell: I do not agree with many of the things you have said. The Inuvialuit themselves, back in 1994, stated clearly in the letter from which I quoted that this does have an impact on the core calving grounds. For whatever reasons, they have changed their opinion. You called to this committee a biologist who works in the North who has stated that it is part of the core calving grounds. Furthermore, you quoted only part of section 22.1 of the agreement. Why did you not complete the quote? It states that all parties must agree to the request for the review.
The Chairman:It says that a review is to be initiated within 90 days. That is where you need the majority of the agreement. If you needed the majority you would not need that clause, because if six parties agree to do something they can burn up the agreement. By any interpretation of contract law, that clause is there only on the basis that it opens it up for any party to use it; otherwise, you do not need the clause.
Mr. Mitchell: During their negotiations, the individuals who negotiated that clause indicated that they had never made a suggestion to the effect that any party could force a review that needed to be unanimous in order to come to that agreement. I am not a lawyer and will not pretend to be able to argue legalese with you.
The government has not acted in bad faith. The parties involved voluntarily asked for this park to be established and for Darnley Bay to relinquish their mineral resources knowing that there was high to medium potential. They voluntarily entered into the agreement of 1996. The government did not act in bad faith. In fact, it paid for the representation to the Inuvialuit to make absolutely certain that they were comfortable coming to the agreement of 1996. However, there have been changes from 1996 to 1998, and there will be changes from 1998 to 2002. According to your logic, I will go back and say: "Since there have been some changes, I wish to amend my park boundaries." I do not wish to see that happen.
With the 2.5 per cent in the park we avoid the negative consequences. The Inuvialuit will receive economic benefits from the 80 per cent that the mining companies will develop. Take the 2.5 per cent out of the park and you have no assurance that it will make any difference in terms of economic benefits to mining, but it will have negative consequences. The prudent decision is to pass Bill C-38 as it stands. I urge this committee to do that.
It has been an invigorating debate.I appreciate the time and energy that the committee has put into this.
The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Minister. You have been very receptive to our committee.
Colleagues, that ends what we thought would be a very brief examination of this bill, one that has gone on for some time. The committee heard from many witnesses and I thank you all for your attendance and involvement. This has turned out to be a very interesting examination of legislation.
We have before us Bill C-38, to amend the National Parks Act. I believe the desire is to proceed to a vote.
First, shall the title stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Butts: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt clause 1 of the bill.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, before passing clause 1 of the bill, we have heard from a number of people who oppose this bill. We heard this morning from Mr. Kusugak, President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. There are issues of caribou migration and the calving area.
We have also heard from witnesses who are in favour of Bill C-38, people who do not live in the North. Here we go again. Those people have settled a land claim, and now we must listen to them.
What is the rush? It has been seven years. What difference will another four or five months make? We are condemning the people up there by not listening to them. I do not wish to pass this bill without amendment.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, are you speaking merely to the motion of Senator Butts? Are you in opposition to it? Perhaps you could clarify your position.
Senator Adams: I want to delay the bill. I want to hear from more people about the consequences of passing this bill. We heard from Mr. Kusugak this morning. Why are we proceeding with clause by clause today? Are we going to pass the bill today?
The Chairman: Yes. Essentially, that is the motion in front of us.
Senator Adams: I say no.
The Chairman: Are you speaking against the bill, or are you saying that the matter should be adjourned?
Senator Adams: I am saying that we should at least adjourn any further discussion of this bill.
The Chairman: We have before us a motion with respect to clause 1 of the bill. In fairness, I did not see your hand come up before, Senator Adams.
Senator Butts, would you allow Senator Adams to present his motion to adjourn this matter and then come back to your motion? Would you have any objection to that?
Senator Adams: I put my hand up, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I am sorry, but I did not see it.
To do this properly, I suggest that we deal with the motion to adjourn the matter first, and then come back to the motion of Senator Butts.
Senator Butts: That is acceptable.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, is the nature of your motion to adjourn to a specific time or on a sine die basis?
Senator Adams: The witness this morning said that we should keep in touch regarding what is happening in this area. I do not want to put a deadline on this, but I believe we should revisit the matter before we adjourn for the summer recess.
The Chairman: I take it your motion would be to adjourn the matter on a sine die basis to be brought back after a determination of the findings of this committee based on the evidence we heard this morning. Is that your view?
Senator Adams: Yes.
Senator Buchanan: I second the motion.
The Chairman: Is there further discussion of the motion?
Senator Hays: I intend to speak against the motion. Senator Adams has made his point.
Senator Buchanan: I have always believed that people in a local area should have their say. My political philosophy in Nova Scotia has always been that one should never overlook the people in the area. The people are not wrong. Governments can be wrong and politicians can be wrong, but the people are not wrong.
Approximately 90 per cent of what we have heard here has come from individuals representing the people in that area. Even the local government of the Northwest Territories is saying that they want that small portion of land excluded because it could help them economically in an area where there is high unemployment. Again, we are ignoring the people. I have not heard anyone from that area come before this committee and say, "We want it as it is; we do not want that amendment." We heard from groups up there. We heard from the government. We even heard a biologist who talked about the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou, saying that they move everywhere. I also heard from people who know that there will be protection for the calving grounds even if there is exploration in that 2.5 per cent.
The law as it is now will allow the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories to protect those areas if there are any problems. Let us set that aside right now. Senator Adams agrees with that.
We have heard from the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit corporation and the group this morning. They are in that area; they are the people. If the economic benefits are there, they want those economic benefits.
Why are we listening to Parks Canada in Hull, Quebec and Ottawa, Ontario? They are telling us to ram this bill through. That is what they are doing. The bureaucracy is telling us to do that. They are not listening to the people, even though they agreed a few years ago that they would review the issue. Now they are saying that they will not review it. As I understand it, they are saying that because the House of Commons has passed the bill, it is a done deal.
Well, is the Senate not relevant? Do we not have some say? I thought we had some say in this matter. We are simply asking the federal government to delay this bill for a short period of time. Senator Adams and Mr. Kusugak would like to delay it until we have more information as to whether it is right, wrong or indifferent to exclude that 2.5 per cent. Therefore, I support the motion of Senator Adams in the interests not of the government, the politicians or the bureaucracy, but of the people of the Northwest Territories who are relying on this Senate committee to do the right thing.
Senator Hays: It is difficult when one disagrees. I am not unsympathetic to the point of view Senator Adams offers. On the basis of the hearings we have had, I see a clash in the values. I believe "values" is a sufficiently ambiguous word to use.
There is a dissonance between a predominantly Inuit group represented by the Inuvialuit and a predominantly non-Inuit group represented by Parks Canada over what is really an issue of optimizing the possibility -- or perhaps probability -- of a mine being developed in that area with the attendant economic benefits. Both sides have made points about cautionary signals sent by Parks Canada regarding the negative effects that not proceeding with this legislation would have on the creation of other parks and about cautionary signals from the other side regarding the negotiations that must be ongoing with peoples in the North on the creation of new parks and, in particular, on the Alaskan national wildlife refuge lands. They are fair comments and we will have to live with them, depending on what happens with this bill. They are both valid points.
I find section 22.1 to be a problematic issue. There are accusations of bad faith in a rather stiffly worded letter from the Inuvialuit dated November 30. The response of Parks Canada is that they had a deal, and of course we have written evidence of that. Their unwillingness to reopen the negotiations is the most difficult issue for me because I do not see it as a two- or four-month issue but one that could potentially be indefinite. That would not be a good thing and would not be what we wish to achieve in park creation in Canada.
With regard to calving grounds, there is no determinative evidence. The issue of migratory species will be with us whether there is a mine or a park. I have no doubt about the superior understanding of the Inuit of that matter because that is their life and their survival. However, progress is being made and I do not see that as a determinative issue.
This is important legislation for the government and I believe that damage will be done whether or not the bill passes, but I do not think that the damage is irreparable. I am persuaded because 80 per cent of the anomaly is outside the park.
Delay in creation of the park is something to be avoided. I am not without sympathy to the position of Senator Adams, but we have come to the point where we must decide and my decision is not to support the motion of Senator Adams to table this bill, sine die or otherwise.
I appreciate the opportunity that Senator Adams's motion has given me to make the points that explain my reasons for taking the position I do and voting the way that I will on the bill when we do clause-by-clause study, assuming that the motion does not pass.
Senator Spivak: On the issue of who the people are, I appreciate the views of Senator Adams, but he votes on many things in the Senate which affect Manitoba and I do not say that he has no right to do that.
Senator Buchanan: That is not fair. That is not what he is saying.
Senator Spivak: I am not impugning but I am saying that as a federal house we must take a broad view. Canada belongs to us all, even if the Inuit have control of one part.
It would be interesting to have a debate on who the people are. I am sure that you would not support the view that the rest of Canada has no voice on whether Quebec can separate, and you would certainly not support the view that the aboriginals have no voice in that. Who the people are depends on where you stand. While I appreciate your views, I see it differently.
Jose Kusugak said that it might be useful to note at this time that if all identified caribou calving grounds within Nunavut were established as national parks, nearly 45 per cent of Nunavut would be dedicated to national parks and other conservation areas. That is a total of 855,000 square kilometres, which is an area almost as big as British Columbia.
However, as I understand it, 97 per cent of that area is open for development. That will probably change in the next 20 or 25 years and it will be very different from what it is today. As an example, northern Alberta is now very different from what it was. Canada is a land of wilderness and we must preserve it. We are talking about a small piece of land.
Senator Adams: We are talking about a small piece of land and all we are asking for is 2 per cent.
Senator Spivak: Yes, I know, but the important principle is that development must go on. However, it cannot go on everywhere without preserving certain lands without development. If we do not adhere to that principle, all land would be developed and this country would not be what we want it to be. It will be transformed forever.
I know that my position is not a popular one, certainly on my side of the table, but I cannot do otherwise than vote for that principle. It is not that development is being threatened; it is that land and conservation are being threatened everywhere. Those of us who believe in that principle must stand up for it in a very practical way. The practical issue is that the company will explore regardless of whether or not they have that particular hot spot. It is not as if the principle of conservation prohibits development. In fact, a great deal of development will proceed.
Senator Butts: I understand that the purpose of this motion is to delay the legislation.
The Chairman: That is right.
Senator Butts: What is the benefit of delaying? It is my understanding that we cannot simply change the boundaries. If we do not agree to this, we must get the agreement of everyone to change the agreement of 1996.
Senator Buchanan: They have already said that they will agree to that.
Senator Butts: Six groups must agree.
Senator Buchanan: Five groups have said that they would. Parks Canada is the only one that will not.
Senator Butts: The lawyer for Parks Canada said that they will not.
This delay will be indefinite because in order to change the boundaries you must go back to the 1996 agreement.
Senator Adams: I have just a few comments. Let us say we pass the bill today. What happens if the caribou are not there in 10 years? Will we just leave the park in place there and still prevent people from going in there and mining? They need that piece in there for the future of the mining.
We heard this morning from the witness that this is not like Manitoba where they can grow hay. They cannot grow hay up there. The caribou have to move where the feed is. The caribou do not migrate to the same place over a hundred-year cycle. That is my concern. We are just going to leave the park in place there so people cannot touch it. How will we help the people who live there? Are you more concerned about the people in the community or are you more concerned about the caribou? The caribou will move anywhere as long as they can find feed. We are hurting the community and the people up there. They have already lost 29 per cent of their property in the land claim settlement. How much more does the government want from those people? Right now they want to have a place in reserve for mining in the future, and are we going to say no to them? I have been in the parks in Manitoba and there are cottages in the parks. No one up there will build a cottage. They are just trying to protect themselves.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, may we take this matter to a vote, then? All those in favour Senator Adams's motion to table the bill please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
We will now go on to the motion of Senator Butts that clause 1 carry. Is there any discussion with respect to that motion? Then we will take it to a vote. All those in favour of the motion please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed? Motion carried.
Shall the bill carry on the same vote, seven to five?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the bill be reported to the Senate without amendment by the same vote?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Thank you, honourable senators.
The committee adjourned.