Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 13, Evidence of May 1, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 1, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 2, to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon, met this day at 8:02 a.m.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Today we will continue discussions, and perhaps have resolution on Bill C-2. We will hear from our witnesses after which we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
It is my pleasure to welcome you back, Grand Chief Schultz and Mr. Mills. I invite you to begin.
Mr. Ed Schultz, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations: Honourable senators, I wish to express on behalf of my peoples, our deep appreciation for the time allotted to speak to you on a subject matter that is of great importance to our citizens. I will keep my comments as brief as possible to allow for as much questioning as possible.
I emphasize that we recognize that honourable senators have had some representations that express some measures of concern associated with Bill C-2, which you are now contemplating. As a background, I would like to indicate to you that the bill before you is the culmination of work that exceeds a decade's worth of work from many Yukoners from all walks of life.
I was fortunate enough in my earlier tenure with my First Nations and my peoples to be involved with the inception of chapter 12 under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, when it was not even coined as a chapter or as part of an umbrella agreement. We were very concerned ten years ago with how things were unfolding in our territory in relation to environmental assessment. As honourable senators may recall the ERB guidelines were applied to the Yukon at that time. We had a participatory seat, which was one seat amongst many. I sat on what was called a "regional environmental review committee'' that consisted of a group about three times the size as this committee. Our committee studied the significant projects that were ongoing in the territory.
Our concerns, needless to say, in a room of that size were sometimes not adequately dealt with, given that our people had a very direct, vested and sometimes pecuniary interest in the project that was under review. At that time it was not even a full-blown screening, which had even less involvement by our people.
Given our past experiences from early developments in the territory, such as the gold rush, all the way to the early parts of the mining development booms of the 1970s, we have witnessed a significant amount of disruption and disturbance. In many instances our advice concerning the disruptions was often ignored.
We thought it would be advantageous to create a new arrangement that provided for not only our full involvement as local peoples, but also for the full involvement of all local Yukoners, non-native included. That arrangement would be oriented to the task of empowering local peoples in the initial steps of significant project developments and ensuring that their issues were being considered seriously by proponents and by government regulatory agencies during an earliest review and assessment of projects.
I might add, at the beginning there was quite a significant amount of opposition to such a new bill. However, through a lengthy process of ongoing dialogue, community consultations and visits, we finally got to a general agreement to embark on a chapter specifically dealing with successor legislation to the ERB guidelines order.
As we all know, through that course of negotiations there was the evolution of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. However, that did not detract our focus from what we ultimately wanted to achieve, which was outlined in the final agreement that was adopted in 1993.
As a result of that adoption and ratification of the UFA, we embarked on a tripartite process with Canada, Yukon and ourselves on developing the legislation to implement chapter 12. That was to be concluded, of course, two years after the effective date of the agreements, however we still find ourselves in the process all these many years later. There are many reasons for that, and I would like to share a bit of perspective on that, if I may.
When we look at the amount of due diligence that was attributed to this bill, I think it was beneficial for the bill itself. We have gone through numerous exercises of internal and public consultations. We have also had the full involvement of all Yukon First Nations particularly in the early stages of the development of this bill.
I believe we have submitted our written presentation to this committee, but I also would like to request that my oral presentation also be part of the record as well.
The Chairman: It is, as a matter of course.
I should like to look at some of the points and speak to some of the highlights in the presentation. I will ask Mr. Mills, who does work as our chief negotiator on this file for us to speak to some other points after my presentation.
We think that this process is long overdue for Yukon, given the fact that the Yukon has now undergone a devolution of northern affairs programming, and given the fact that the other 25 chapters of the Umbrella Final Agreement, many of which deal with natural resources, management and co-management spheres are already underway for capacity development and joint management systems. This whole piece of legislation has been developed with all of that in mind. Therefore, it is part and parcel of a greater whole. It is not a singular piece of legislation. We must always be mindful of the fact that it is coupled with all of the other various pieces of the implementation of these agreements. It carries more significance than what it might appear.
Bill C-2 is a piece of legislation that reflects some matters that were of concern to us in the early days. In particular, we also wanted to ensure that the bill reflected an assessment process that took into account the cumulative effects of development throughout the territory. Under the old assessment processes and particularly the review processes, it was not really a focus to look at cumulative effects of certain things that happened throughout the territory.
It is one thing to have a singular project happen. It is a totally different scenario when you have multiples of the same activity, and then you reach a certain threshold where it actually has a much greater impact than any one of the singular activities alone. This bill reflects that, and we were big proponents and advocates for having that integrated into this new bill.
We also wanted to ensure that our people's understandings, traditional observations and knowledge of the land, and spatial and tempo trends were also integrated into the assessment and seriously considered during the early assessments and reviews of major projects. I am pleased to see that this bill also does that. In other words, the more popular coined phrase of traditional knowledge is used in this context, where our people's observations are given some serious consideration coupled with the scientific, research and statistical data that is usually accumulated during these processes. We welcome that as well.
We also wanted to ensure that we took a single-window approach to assessments in the territory. This bill, to its best possible degree, tries to achieve that goal. In particular, we recognize that there are multiple levels of federal and/or territorial and now, indeed, First-Nation jurisdictions related to natural resources throughout the territory. This bill understands that, and this bill is designed to try to accommodate a singular approach for proponents so it does not have to be so complicated for them. This is where we have the regional designated office concept, where it will be easier for all proponents of different activities to have an understanding that is the first entry point for their activity to be properly assessed.
We also see more local involvement not only of our people but also other Yukoners as very important. We also wanted to make sure that the process kept in mind that there were different jurisdictional bodies that had responsibilities, or were mandated to discharge certain decisions at the three levels of government. That is why you have the decision body phrasing within this document. Ultimately, depending on where a project is being contemplated or conducted, one of the three orders of government will have the responsibility of coming up with the final decision. This process is designed in a way to ensure that there are specific recommendations being made under this assessment process to those decision bodies, so that they can be armed with accurate and up-to-date information, but respect the fact that the integrity of those decision bodies is not compromised.
There are other points that I will allow our negotiator to speak to. I know there are a number of questions that you have. You have probably been through this bill and through many presentations, and I believe my comments cover the main points from a political perspective. As a politician that is what I bring to bear here.
Mr. Mills is the negotiator and has worked on a more regular day-to-day basis with representatives from all of our member communities in the territory from a technical and policy point of view. Those processes of consultation and caucus sessions and strategy sessions with our communities were ongoing throughout this process.
I might add that our First Nations, which is the Council of Yukon First Nations, represents 11 of the 14 First Nations throughout the territory. They constitute the majority of those nations within the territory, but in particular we represent all the self-governing First Nations that have been enacted under Parliament in the territory. This whole piece of legislation is part and parcel to the finalization of those already concluded agreements in the territory.
They are anxious to see that this comes to its conclusion, so that the more poignant discussion and negotiations with Canada and YKG can also get underway on how they develop the co-management systems. This is particularly important since as of April 1 devolution took take place with northern affairs. We are very much hoping to see this bill get into its successful conclusion soon. With that, I would ask Mr. Mills to speak to a few points as well.
Mr. Stephen Mills, Chief Negotiator, Council of Yukon First Nations: Honourable senators, I will speak for one-and- a-half minutes.
The Chairman: Do you think we actually believe that?
Mr. Mills: I will complete this as quickly as possible. Grand Chief Schultz has touched on most of the points of our presentation. I will make a few quick comments and then proceed to questions.
The binders spell out how we participated in the development of this legislation. This was probably the best participation we have had in any legislative process, not only as equal parties but as well on how we consulted as parties out to the general public and to various stakeholder groups. I know the package talks about that. For us as First Nations, it was a big step forward, and something that showed that our agreements were working and that these negotiations were very successful.
It is important to note that we strongly believe in and can support this legislation as it is because we have been part, many times, of reviewing every single clause that is within it. Also, we strongly believe that it is consistent with our agreement, and it is also very much consistent with the spirit and intent of how we negotiated our agreements.
Some of the interventions that have been made talk about how this will make things more difficult. We disagree with that. Had we not had legislation of this type, putting in one process for assessment in the Yukon, we would have 15 or 16 different types of assessments that could be done. We think it is a very strong partnership between all orders of government, First Nations, the Yukon government and the federal government.
There has been some suggestion that this legislation impacts on the rights of First Nations that have not finalized their agreements. We do not agree with that position. Grand Chief Schultz has mentioned the participation of First Nations without agreements. We represent some of the First Nations without agreements. This legislation will provide for an improved participation for all First Nations. This proposed legislation provides for guaranteed participation of all First Nations. All First Nations have agreed on the type of funding that they would receive in order to participate in implementing this proposed legislation. When we look at this, the participation of all First Nations in the Yukon will be greatly enhanced. This has been a very positive step forward for all First Nations.
First Nations that have not completed their agreements conclude their agreements that may bring them into status as a decision body. At least now we have a guarantee of participation throughout the entire assessment process. That is an important point that we should make.
The Council of Yukon First Nations represents not only self-governing First Nations but also those that are not self-governing. We believe that the interests of all First Nations have been met within this piece of proposed legislation.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, I have received correspondence from the Inuvialuit in the Mackenzie delta, and they have expressed concern as to how this bill would affect their interests on the North Slope area of the Yukon. My understanding is that under their land claims they have a process to deal with environmental matters. I would be interested to hear the witnesses' comments on that.
Mr. Schultz: Honourable senators, we certainly are aware of the concerns that have been expressed concerning the North Slope. Mr. Mills comes from that area. We do have a number of communities that have a strong interest in the North Slope of the Yukon. Yukoners in general are particularly concerned about the North Slope, as it is geographically caught within the boundaries of Yukon.
The bill that we have been working with does not exclude any portion of Yukon. The bill does provide for the involvement of other peoples in assessment areas for projects that might be located in their geographical areas. It does not exclude them. We have articulated that and reflected that by way of letters in exchange with the Inuvialuit as well as the Gwich'in. As we move forward from this stage of development, we will look at the regulations to more clearly delineate how that would be achieved and fully implemented.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of concern. The North Slope is an area where there could be some oil and gas drilling activity. Obviously the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in, would be concerned with who has lands and who uses that area of the North.
Are you able to state that in the event there is economic activity in that area, that they would be involved?
Mr. Mills: The Inuvialuit and other people that reside in the Mackenzie delta would be involved in these assessments. That is without doubt.
Senator Milne: Gentlemen, you represent 11 of the 14 bands in the Yukon. I assume that two of the three that you do not represent are the Kaska and the Kwanlin Dun. How many of those 11 bands are covered by the UFA?
Mr. Schultz: The UFA is a document that identifies its participants or its parties. The parties are Canada, YTG and the Council of Yukon Indians. The Council of Yukon Indians, under definition, as sanctioned by this agreement, represents all of those original 14 nations, Kwanlin Dun and Kaska included. This is at the umbrella agreement level. Their final agreements are still not concluded. There are two Kaska communities and one Kwanlin Dun. We do not represent them. They are not currently constitutional members of the Council of Yukon First Nations.
I might add that they have been involved with the development of chapter 12 under this process. Subsequent to this process, they were also involved with numerous regional caucus sessions with our communities up until nearly the finalization of a draft of the bill. Once there was a conclusion of the bill, they decided, for whatever reasons that they articulated to you, to not support the bill. I understand some of the points and arguments they made, but I am not convinced that they are sound.
Senator Milne: I realize that. You have said that. Who is the third group that withdrew?
Mr. Schultz: There is no third group.
Senator Milne: If I subtract 11 from 14, I come up with 3.
Mr. Schultz: There are two Kaska communities.
Senator Milne: Since the total population of Yukon is a little less than 29,000 people, how many people do you represent?
Mr. Schultz: I have a newspaper article in which the three communities indicate they represent 40 per cent of the Aboriginal population of the territory. I do not think that is accurate.
Senator Milne: I am asking about your group, not the Kaska or Kwanlin Dun.
Mr. Schultz: We constitute 11 communities. We are around 9,500 individuals of Aboriginal descent captured in the terms of this agreement throughout the entire territory. Our 11 communities probably represent 70 per cent of that, at the very least.
Senator Christensen: At the hearings on Tuesday both Kwanlin Dun and the Kaska expressed concern with the eligibility of their members to be appointed to the board. They say that they have been participants, and In fact, they have received considerable funding to participate in this process. However, because they do not have a final agreement and are not part of the CYFN, they do not have a vote at meetings of grand chiefs. They have more of an observer status, which makes sense. Their concern is that they will not be eligible or considered for appointments to the board.
Mr. Schultz: There is a board, committee and commission process and policy under the Council of Yukon First Nations for the implementation of this agreement. Kwanlin Dun and Kaska are provided with all the updates when these appointments are made. They receive advance notification. We are also in receipt of many of the nominations that they bring forward. Indeed, a great many of their citizens are currently involved with many boards and committees established under the umbrella agreement because it is provided for and recognized that they are parties to this agreement. They are afforded every opportunity to be full participants in those discussions and in those final decisions. This agreement generally falls beyond the scope of the constitutional framework internal to CYFN.
Those types of representations are not necessarily reflective of exactly how things are being concluded. Under this bill, it is also recognized that opportunities will be made available to them for their representation concerning projects that would happen within their lands. There has been no First Nation jurisdiction not captured by this legislation that would provide for their full involvement. There would be no undertaking on our part to exercise any kind of authority that rightfully belongs to them within their traditional lands.
Senator Christensen: They have not finalized an agreement. Therefore, the lands which have been set aside have been identified and withdrawn. If projects are brought forward on those lands, what protection will they have?
Mr. Mills: It is important to note that this legislation neither gives nor takes away some of the ultimate authority as to whom will make decisions regarding certain lands.
If you are considering the Kaska or Kwanlin Dun situation and a project is occurring in their area, then there are certain governments that now have authority to say "yes'' or "no'' to particular projects. This does not grant any new right to the Kaska or the Kwanlin Dun. That is something that is subject to their negotiations and potential court cases.
This legislation guarantees that they will participate in the assessment. This legislation also recognizes that they be consulted before a decision document is issued by the Government of Canada or Yukon.
This legislation results in increased funding for participation in the decision making process. It also provides guaranteed participation in any assessment. When it comes to the ultimate regulatory process that is something that is dealt with outside this legislation.
Senator Christensen: Are the lands that have been identified and withdrawn pending final settlement protected?
Mr. Schultz: Yes. For those nations, even the CYFN nations still outstanding to date, there is interim protection to the lands that have been identified for their primary interest for settlement.
Senator Christensen: I believe they are protected for five years, with the possibility of renewal after settlement.
Mr. Schultz: Yes.
Senator Christensen: I wish to return to Senator Sibbeston's question on the Inuvialuit. Their concern is that there may be a conflict between their assessment process and our assessment process and recommendations. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Mills: When we looked at development of this legislation we had to start with the principle that this legislation explicitly does not exclude the North Slope. Therefore, the first thing we looked at in developing this legislation is that we cannot put forward an exclusion. I believe that even my own First Nation may have difficulty not participating in an assessment under chapter 12 with a project on the North Slope.
In the legislation there is a great difference between the scope of the two different assessment regimes and the factors to be considered as far as the North Slope is concerned.
So as not to have two public panel reviews we have provisions as to what will happen when a project goes up to a review board sort of process on the Inuvialuit agreements. We also recognize there is some potential for two different assessment processes, especially at the screening level, to occur on the Yukon North Slope.
There are two ways to deal with it which are built into the legislation. One allows the assessment bodies to consider work that has been done by another assessment body. Thus, the same work does not have to be done over again. When we are looking at the duplication that occurs, we think that aspect is important. In that way, we do not have to try to redo the work and have the same people participate and provide the same information to two different assessment processes.
Our legislation allows for dual processes on particular projects. The difficulty that we have at this point is that the Inuvialuit do not have the same sort of provision within the Inuvialuit agreement. It is something that I understand is in the amendment process, but that has been a long process for the Inuvialuit with regards to amendments to their agreements.
We think the framework is there and when their agreements look through amendments then we think the two will fit together much better, but we are at a time now where we have to protect chapter 12 and what our agreements had set out.
Senator Christensen: Another concern of the Inuvialuit, of course, was that they felt they should perhaps be eligible to be one of the appointments to the boards. In Bill C-2 each First Nation does not necessarily have a member on the board. Please comment.
Mr. Schultz: You are correct that at the board level there is some representation for First Nations, but that is the overarching body. We do not necessarily see the merit in having someone from that region on the board per se because predominantly this process will be dealing with mostly, substantially, probably 95 per cent of the time or more, more direct Yukon interests. Other First Nations in the Yukon have a more pecuniary interest, but the way it is designed is that the interests of the Inuvialuit and/or the Gwich'in in that region of the North would be involved with the panel and the processes of assessment.
Senator Christensen: Are they directly involved in any project on those lands because they in fact have the authority over them?
Mr. Schultz: Yes.
Mr. Mills: The position that has been put forward by the Inuvialuit is a similar position put forward by the Tetlit Gwich'in as well as by the Kaska and Kwanlin Dun. The real issue comes down to the fact that we have three First Nation nominations to make to the minister on these three positions to be filled. If each of the non-CYFN First Nations is guaranteed a seat then no CYFN First Nations will be part of the board.
Everyone has the ability to put their nominations forward; as we do when we collect names for any board, as does the Tetlin Gwich'in do, as does the Kaska, Kwanlin Dun, and any CYFN First Nation. At that point we tend to choose the best three people who can represent all First Nations interests because no one is a delegate of any particular Aboriginal group. Everyone on these boards is to be independent, so we think that that will ensure that we get the best people put forward.
One of the things that was not designed within chapter 12, and therefore not in the legislation, is the fact that when it comes to panels under the YESAA board, the panels are made up of members of the board, and so therefore if there is a project on the Yukon North Slope, there would not be Inuvialuit person automatically appointed to the panel unless they are also a member of the board in general.
Senator Christensen: I would like to switch to the regulatory process because it is a major concern to the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, the placer mining association, and other interest groups in the Yukon, as the regulatory process that has taken place and that is still in the process of being developed.
Would you comment on the regulatory processes as you have seen it to date and give your perspective on them? Has is been as fulsome as you expected, or could it be improved upon?
Mr. Schultz: From a political perspective, my colleague chiefs and I are pleased that the level of our participation in regulatory development, not only in this bill but in other bills as well, is really unprecedented in this country. I think the Yukon presents itself as a region that really should be looked at as a forerunner of how good governance, stewardship and relationship building between indigenous peoples and other Canadians can actually be improved.
Our involvement has been adequate. It certainly has provided a venue to ensure that the interests and the concerns of our peoples are being brought to bear in the development of public legislation, and regulations and so forth, so I find it satisfactory. I have not heard otherwise from my communities.
Mr. Mills: As a point of clarification, Senator Christensen, I think when you were talking about a regulatory process you were talking about this legislation itself.
Senator Christensen: Yes.
Mr. Mills: We have had discussions and when we talk with the industry side and the First Nation side, too, there was a misconception that this was to change the way regulatory processes operate in the Yukon. In fact, that caused some misunderstandings at the beginning. This process is simply that of an assessment process that feeds into the regulatory regimes that are being established in there, and devolution has changed it in the Yukon government's role and our agreements, as we negotiate them, change our role as a regulator of our lands. There is a distinction between those two processes.
When it comes to participation we have been adequately funded to participate in this process, and that does not always occur. We have been an equal party to the table and, in fact, there is no language within the bill that was forced upon us to conclude our negotiations. We agreed to all the compromises and everything else in order to move this forward. To my mind there are not many acts that tend to do that and incorporate First Nations in that way.
We have gone to each community, and every First Nation government many times, and for us the consultation process and the participation of First Nations in development of this legislation is a first-time experience. We have never before participated to this level.
Senator Christensen: I agree with you that the First Nations have received good funding. One of the concerns of some of the other organizations is that in fact they do not receive funding and they have to be out there working and also trying to participate in the process as well.
I would like to move on to the five-year review because that is an issue that has raised concerns in different areas. That is not in the actual Bill C-2 but it is in the UFA. Will you elaborate on that five-year review requirement? There is a concern that if it was in Bill C-2 as well then you may end up having to have two reviews, whereas in the UFA it is there, it is a requirement and it will happen.
Mr. Schultz: You are correct that the final agreements in the territory, both under self-government and land claims, have a requirement for a five-year review of the adequacy of the provisions of those agreements, as well as the various funding arrangements. They are mandatory and are reflected under the Yukon self-government legislation and the Yukon final land claims agreement legislation passed by the House of Commons.
I will ask Mr. Mills to speak more poignantly to this legislation and how that is reflected in the work they have done to date because I cannot recall off the top of my head.
Senator Christensen: Is this five-year review just a review as to how this is implementing the UFA; or is it an overall review that would reflect on how it is affecting industry and everyone else?
Mr. Schultz: It would not look at the whole socio-economic impact of the agreement. It would look at the specific provisions within the agreement and how well they were implemented.
Mr. Mills: The requirement in the UFA with regard to chapter 12 is for a five-year review after the enactment of the legislation. We have a very specific requirement to do this review. The review is not just of the legislation, but also of the effectiveness of the process in general. It is more comprehensive than just a simple look at whether or not it lines up well with chapter 12.
As First Nations we believe it goes right to the point of whether the assessment bodies are effectively operating and how the process can be improved. That requirement is there. The reason it is not necessary in the legislation is because it is already required within a constitutionally protected document. The need to repeat that can only cause conflict between the language versus simply leaving it as the UFA sets out.
Senator Christensen: The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act created a number of problems in that particular jurisdiction. It was certainly implemented before or during the drafting of this. Were there lessons learned from that? As far as you are concerned, were there changes to this act that reflect the problems that were part of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act?
Mr. Mills: While developing this legislation, we looked at some of the older regimes that were established, as well as some of the newer ones. We also included substantial discussions with some of the people within the MVRMA secretariat to learn from their experiences. There are many experiences that occurred in that act. I would like to say we solved all the problems.
One of the things we definitely have learned from it to ensure that we have an adequate amount of time to implement this legislation, to ensure that these bodies are prepared and ready to proceed when the obligation comes that way. That is why we have a longer time period that allows for adequate training and their establishment.
We have looked at these pieces of legislations and some of the draft regulations. We think we have learned from their experience, as well as the experience of various other assessment regimes that are set up. We definitely looked quite broadly to ensure we could learn from other people's mistakes as well as gain from the positive things they learned.
Senator Christensen: An issue that was raised at our meetings on Tuesday had to do with capacity. I mean the capacity to meet all the requirements of these boards and the work that will have to be done in the six regions. It is a major problem in the Yukon because where there is a small population it is difficult to get all the people together. Yet we will in fact be masters of our own house when this happens. Could you comment, please?
Mr. Schultz: Capacity is a major focus of the implementation of this particular legislation, as well as all other subsequent obligations and responsibilities under the final agreements. Recognizing that this bill is to be a single window approach to assessment, all our member First Nations that are currently self-governing are in the process, with Canada through a self-government secretariat, of looking at what types of capacity we need to focus on. We are considering what type of core capacity we need to ensure that the discharge of our responsibility is done adequately. There is still some discussion currently happening on that topic.
Each of the First Nations that are self-governing are in the process of negotiating some measures of capacity for different components of their responsibility. Some are still doing design work, ultimately looking at what type of land and resource management systems they will develop. Before they get there, under the constitutional frameworks of those communities, they must seek the direction of their citizens as to what type of land and resource legislation they want for their own settlement lands.
Outside the direct obligations in the co-management systems outlined in the agreement, the First Nations have to clearly identify what it is they would want to have more control or say over, or what other subject matter they are prepared to leave rest with Canada or with the territorial system.
Senator Christensen: We have a non-derogation clause as it applies to First Nations that ties into the constitutional requirements of section 35. There is not a non-derogation clause in this bill. Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Schultz: From our perspective there is no requirement for a non-derogation clause. This legislation flows from this final agreement. The final agreement has a non-derogation clause. More explicitly, it has clauses that speak to defining that position.
In a broader context, the overarching reason for this bill and other pieces of legislation coming from Ottawa is that there was a need to define a relationship between Canada and our peoples in Yukon. The relationship before that was identified under the Indian Act. It was a not a very useful relationship; in fact, it was a dictatorial relationship. This new final agreement and this new arrangement between our peoples and Canada now brings a more defined level of certainty as to what that relationship is.
For those nations that have already ratified the whole basket of relatively undefined rights captured under section 35(1) of the Constitution, we will exchange whatever they may be for the provisions and commitments outlined in these final agreements which are more definitive and more certain to Canada and to us as to what those rights are.
With that being the overall position, we did not take a firm stand on saying that we wanted a non-derogation clause because it was not necessary. It was flowing from an agreement that already had defined what those rights are.
Senator Milne: Chief Schultz, the placer mining people who appeared before us on Tuesday were concerned about timelines. If their claims expire before some of the various groups have their own organization together, then they will not be able to renew those claims. Can you give them any kind of comfort in that regard?
From what you have said, the different groups that you represent are in different stages of organizing to be able to decide what the uses of their lands should be and how they will consult with their own people about it.
Mr. Schultz: When I said that, I was talking about those 16,000 square kilometres that they directly own. The remaining 200-some odd thousand square kilometres of Yukon would fall under the general laws of application. Those processes would not be impacted by those internal discussions by First Nations.
Senator Milne: I understand that. However, there will be some areas staked out on lands that are directly under control of the bands.
Mr. Schultz: That is indeed the case. There is one thing that we clearly understand in our self-government systems. It is that when we assumed the responsibility, we also assumed the liability.
The liability is where we fail to adequately and responsibly discharge any responsibility or decisions that are required of us. We recognize that all orders of government have that liability. As self-governing nations, we now carry that liability. We are making every effort to ensure that will not be the case. I do not think many members of KPMA or other mining interests in the Yukon understand that a good portion of the 16,000 square kilometres that were retained by First Nations under self-government were set aside for the purpose of mining. I know that the converse is generally the impression that others have, but that is not the case.
With that type of positioning by many of these nations, I do not think it is in their best interests to be stalling up anything.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, this is similar to the Nunavut water act, which emanated from the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In cases like this, this really emanates from the Yukon umbrella agreement. There is no need for a non-derogation clause. Members should note that distinction. With general law, there is a need for a non-derogation clause, but in cases like this, there is not a need because they are sufficiently protected under the initial land claims agreement.
The Chairman: You will have gathered that it is very seductive to hear that there has been this wonderful level of cooperation and involvement all the way along, because that is a rare occurrence.
You will have gathered that we are at great pains to ensure that all people are properly represented and accounted for and that all people are taken into account in this agreement, because it applies to all people.
In the present circumstance, having to do with placer mining in particular, there is a degree of reservation among the industry as to how effective people on the ground are. They have little confidence in the people who are on the ground.
Are you confident that there will not be a group of parachuted bureaucrats who will not know what is going on in these regional offices dictating, as you put it, what will happen with these assessments? Are you fully confident that these will be people who actually know what is going on?
Mr. Schultz: Absolutely, yes. If I thought otherwise, I would not be before this committee making these representations. I have been involved with the process, particularly on environmental assessment from the outset of my tenure with First Nations, which is now working on 16 years. I have seen the evolution of our involvement, and the evolution of different processes, particularly regionally.
I concur with some of the observations by the industry representatives that, in the past, there have been some bureaucratic failures in dealing with the issues in a timely manner. There have been some exercises between us that have resulted in some amiable resolution to some of those flawed processes.
That does not mean that we do not have our problems once we get outside of our own territory. Honourable senators may have heard that we are under some debate on some decisions by Fisheries and Oceans related to placer mining. The First Nations, the industry and the territorial government worked closely together on a solution and amiable processes. We are continuing to advocate to representatives here in Ottawa that that is something that we want to continue.
If there is any parachuting that happens, I would tend to say it comes from Ottawa, if I might say so.
The Chairman: That is exactly what I was asking.
Mr. Schultz: This bill is designed for local involvement. The designated offices are to be located in regional areas of the territory and manned by individuals who are public servants. It does not clearly delineate if it is a First Nation public servant or a territorial or a federal public servant. That will be determined as we move down that process of implementation. That is only the place of first window entry.
The process in itself is very clear and explicit that it is local people who would be involved in these processes. I am absolutely confident, as we get further down the road to defining the regulations for the implementation of this proposed legislation, that there should be some measure of comfort provided to the industry.
We have two sides to our personality in First Nations in Yukon today. Our governance responsibilities are reflected in these agreements. The delivery of public health, safety programs, services, joint management, stewardship, all those things that we do is based on the principal objective that we will be self-governing and, to the greatest extent possible, develop our own revenue for the delivery of these programs and services.
How can that be done? At the outset, it is done, as with most other governments, with some direct, strong fiscal transfer agreements with Ottawa.
However, when you look at the fiscal agreements that we have outlined for the implementation, we have also oriented ourselves to the task of developing own-source revenue, stimulating economic growth in our regions, getting more involvement and flexible capital identified and put into our regional corporations and private businesses so that they can generate money that will become a tax base for these local First Nations that we would share with Canada on income tax, property tax, et cetera. I have to go before another standing committee here in a few hours on a fiscal bill related to the implementation.
We have no interest in developing regulatory processes that would equally stall up our private enterprises and businesses because it would not be very beneficial for us. It is not that we are sitting on one side of the fence solely and saying we will hold everything up. That is not in our interest. It is in our interest to ensure that there is a fair and balanced representation during these assessments and that they are done in a timely manner and that they are done in a manner that gives everyone a measure of satisfaction that when something is being done, all things were considered, all people have been considered, and now it will move forward and have a strong, reasonable chance of being successful. That is the critical issue here.
Whenever there is a failed major project in the territory, the rest of the Yukon wears it. We know a number of large projects that have failed financially, where they fold up shop and dissolve themselves and take all their profits, and then we are left as taxpayers in the Yukon and as residents with the high-cost infrastructure that was developed for the project, as well as all the outstanding bills. We do not want to see that any more. We want to see local people take charge and ensure that these projects are sound projects.
Senator Eyton: It is inspiring to hear the love-in. I did run through your written submission.
Let us say it is unusual to have proposed legislation evolve in this way and be applauded in this way. That makes me a little suspicious.
Based on my experience in dealing with government "timely manner'' for a government department is four, five, six years, something of that sort. Again, based on my experience in business, "timely'' is probably a year or two, after which you are stretching because time means money.
From the point of view of the council and the First Nations, what do you think of that? Much of it revolves around your assurance that we are integrated and we will look at it together and it will be done in a timely manner. It strikes me that the definitions of timely manner may be very different among the three interests that I have mentioned.
Mr. Schultz: There is plenty of room to be pessimistic if we are only looking at historical precedent. I like to be more forward-looking and look at those shortcomings as being what needs to be corrected. That is how we are trying to adjust ourselves.
Timeliness is directly associated to the magnitude. Certainly, I would expect that in the case of a single placer operation timely manner should be a very quick turnaround. It is an operation of a small magnitude. You could pretty much assess relatively quickly what its impacts may be.
If it is a Faro-type operation with a large open pit mine and hundreds of millions of dollars being expended for electrical infrastructure and other support systems and there is a dependence on government grants and all these sorts of things, then the time involved in that type of assessment might take a little longer. I could not say what is an appropriate time for each, as much as I can say it all depends on the magnitude of what is being assessed.
Built into the legislation are categories of assessment, for example, what types of things will be assessed, to what degree and what will be an initial review versus what will be a full-blown assessment. In that regard, there would also be a distinction as to what is timely.
Senator Eyton: It would be interesting to hear your comment on the attitude of First Nations in Yukon to economic development of one kind or another. Is that something you look on in a favourable manner? Is it something that you do rather neutrally or do you look at it carefully in terms of all its impacts? Is there a fundamental bias against economic development and maintaining the present way of life?
I say that because I know for sure that businesses can make choices. The choices they make are to try to deal with responsible people who will work in a timely way or they will go somewhere else with their money and make an investment in some other jurisdiction, state or area where they are welcome and where the timelines are reasonable.
I say that in the context of all the major mining companies that now have international standards for development. I am talking here about the environment and safety. For example, a major mining company will have the same standards in Chile as it does in Mexico, Yukon and Northern Ontario. That is because they have read the tea leaves and they understand that is where they have to go. To do otherwise is difficult for them. I am talking about the major companies and I am familiar with a number of them.
In that context, are you looking for economic development? Do you want to encourage economic development, or are you drawn into it reluctantly?
Mr. Schultz: The actions of many of our peoples and businesses reflect a strong willingness to encourage economic growth and development. However, it must be done responsibly, and I emphasize the word "responsibly.''
Frankly, we have been on the receiving end of primarily the negative effects of unregulated and rushed development for well over 100 years. Right now, we find ourselves on the cusp of actually becoming a full partner in the Canadian federation. I say that not only in the sense of being in a system of government that has equal representation and authority to dispense and discharge public health and safety programming and the administration of lands and resources, but also to become full economic partners in the private sector.
We have a clear distinction in our region. We have undertaken a two-year exercise among our communities in which Kwanlin Dun, Kaska, and three northern British Columbia communities were involved. They have now become part of a regional corporation. We used to have a fully integrated system. Our political and economic systems used to be part and parcel of the same thing. We have now segregated the two out; they are two distinct activities.
Our private sector people who run our local businesses, our local corporations and our regional corporations are heavily engaged in the forestry and mining sectors. We have quite a number of people involved in placer mining. We have a number of First Nations who are interested in getting into large project mining. We have a number of First Nations that are involved in the oil and gas sector. A number of our First Nations have strong partnerships with airlines, transportation systems, telecommunications and so forth. As a region, we are very proactive despite any historical unpleasantness to the contrary.
Generally, at the end of the day, our people are optimists. Our elders and our citizens have mandated us to have that forward-looking view. It would not be in our interest to have regulatory processes that are too much of a burden and stymie any economic growth.
If we do not have enough economic growth in the region, we will not generate enough revenue to carry out and discharge all the good public health and safety programs that we want. Although initial parts of the agreements speak to fiscal transfer agreements from Canada, they are not guaranteed it wholeheartedly in perpetuity. We must start working toward a measure of our own source of revenue generation. The only way to do that is to ensure that there are adequate regulatory processes that are done in a timely manner.
Mr. Mills: Not only is there creation of wealth for governments, but our corporations are now some of the largest employers through private business development. As head of one of the development corporations, we have partnered with other Yukoners in joint venture arrangements. We have long-term, established, non-Aboriginal businesses that we have joined in partnership with to strengthen both them and ourselves. We have been clear that we are very much in favour of economic development, but economic development that considers all aspects of growth.
Concerning the concept of having local offices, we think there is capacity out there in the local areas. It is just that there are people who do not want to work in Whitehorse. They want to work somewhere else. In the past, the placer industry was supportive of decision-making in Dawson City. It changes from time to time. At one time they will support the local offices, while at other times they will not. The concept of having an office in the Dawson region was to have an office with some expertise so that these assessments could be done more quickly.
When you look at the regulations and the various aspects, there are different levels of assessment to be done. We think the designated offices will be more efficient than having an assessment done out of Whitehorse. In turn, we think the larger projects may have to go to more detailed assessments, which is reasonable.
Some of the rules that are established allow for setting up different categories within an evaluation that has been done, so you can get those things through that should be done quickly. It is in all our favours not to jam up this assessment process with unnecessary projects.
Senator Eyton: People will be watching.
Mr. Schultz: I hope so.
Senator Baker: Do you have any regrets that perhaps in your attempts to develop legislation that has to go hand in hand with federal legislation you were not able to go as far as you wanted to go?
In various parts of the bill I notice the two words "may'' and "shall.'' These words are used within the context of the panels that will be established. The panels will have various authority to have public meetings in local areas. No matter which panel you look at, it has the authority of a superior court judge in that it will demand documents and witnesses. Those witnesses will have to answer questions put to them and the documents will have to be disclosed. That is the power of a superior court judge. Power is not defined in the bill, but that obviously is the power.
If you look at similar powers given to panels established under similar provincial legislation you discover that there are protections given in that clause of the bill as to the use in further proceedings of any further information that someone gives before that body. In other words, the right not to have something that you said before one of these bodies held against you in a future proceeding.
It seems to me to be somewhat out of the ordinary to have this power to be able to demand and get witnesses who must answer the questions and produce the documents in order to make the decisions that you want to make. However, you would then have to consult with the territorial or the federal government agency or minister so affected by the results of the panel decisions.
Were you not able to get something that you would like to have gotten when you started the process at the end of the process?
I am concerned with the additional power that has been given to you under this bill to call whatever witnesses you wish to get the answers you wish and whatever documents you need in a process not of examining environmental assessment but of examining economic benefits of an industry.
Mr. Schultz: In terms of regrets, I think all of the parties could look at this and say they all have some measure of regret. It was based on a framework of negotiation. As an example, it was the desire of our communities to have a designated office in each community. Through the process of discussions and dialogue with the other orders of government and with other sectors, it ended up being with the six. That is far less than what we originally wanted. That is one example.
Senator Baker: Is that one of 11?
Mr. Schultz: One out of 14; one in each community. Each of our First Nation communities has some traditional lands that they have occupied. They, in our minds, were the local residents, not just our people but also the local non- native residents. They would be the most informed about that geographical area, about wildlife trends, patterns, habitat, the ecosystem, environment, historical, social and economic patterns. That is what we thought and that is what this is all framed on, but through the process of negotiations we ended up with only six.
There are a number of regrets, I suppose. At the end of the day you have to determine what you have conceded and allowed to take a lesser stand on, as long as the original framework of what you were trying to achieve is there.
What does it take to get everyone on board? Quite frankly, when we first came up with what we wanted there was a significant amount of resistance. As we went through the process of negotiations to get people to understand the merit and local control, one of the things that non-native and native people were saying a lot in the 1970s was how all the decisions were made in Ottawa. We are just on the receiving end of things.
When we look at what these panels are responsible to do, they are to make some specific, strong recommendations to a decision body. You are correct; it is either territorial, maybe a federal, but more likely a First Nation order of government. It will be one of those three orders of government. If they are going to make a strong recommendation that the decision body has to seriously consider, and must give written explanations as to why it will not accept that decision, then the reasons must be very sound.
One of the things we needed to make sure is that the panel had every instrument available to get accurate and timely information. If you do not get it in an accurate and timely way, then the proponents might be compromised because it takes that much longer to get things concluded.
Mr. Mills: We have been negotiating for several years on this particular legislation. We had certain objectives that we entered these negotiations with. We have met all our objectives.
It has not always been a good relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada and the Government of Yukon around this proposed legislation, but it is one that we have all agreed to support because it is fairly tightly connected within this legislation. We have had our differences in our negotiations, but we believe the compromises work for everyone and we believe that everyone has compromised on this.
This proposed legislation very much sets aside the other potential regimes that are set up for assessment in the Yukon. There are provisions for how CEAA will exist except for certain parts. We have dealt with the issue of duplication.
The Yukon government will not have its own assessment regime. This will be their assessment regime. This will be the First Nations' assessment regime, as well as the Government of Canada's. We think it is a good one because it is the same rules for any proponent, no matter where the project takes place. Many projects, such as roads, cover different jurisdictions, but it is the same assessment process. It is not just working with other regimes. We developed a regime that is the main assessment process for the entire Yukon, no matter which lands are implicated by it. We think that is a very effective possess for everyone involved.
With regard to having the powers of a court, similar powers have been afforded to other boards within the Yukon; they are not unlimited. Each power, of course, must be judicially proper. It comes down to the question that if a panel makes a recommendation and assessment bodies cannot proceed to issue an approval unless they have recommendations, if people are not providing all the information that is necessary, how do you get that information brought forward? That is why it is essential that this board is able to pull that information in order to complete their assessment. If not, then we know a very good way for anyone to be able to stall the process by not providing all the information that is necessary.
The Chairman: If you are staking a mining claim and starting a small operation to do economic assessments, you want to be sure that the information about where you are and what you are doing and what you are getting out of it is not public. In the situation that you just described, that information becomes public. That is not very good in the mining business.
Mr. Mills: It is actually not good in the mining business and not good in Aboriginal business either. That is why there are provisions in here, and in the Access to Information Act, that allows for provisions for confidentiality within this process. I think that the provisions within the legislation adequately protect proprietary information by industry of any kind, and ensure that certain confidential information provided by people making submissions can also be protected as much as possible, but that is all subject to certain rules around access to information. The purpose is to ensure that the panel is able to pull the information necessary to complete their assessments. I do not think any panel will have the ability to start to blanket subpoena and draw whatever information. It needs to be something that is pertinent to the assessment that is being done, and I think that the protections under the courts will ensure that this is done properly.
Senator Setlakwe: I know the question was raised as to the economic side while the assessments deal with the environmental side. What about economic benefits?
In the Northwest Territories, there are a number of diamond mines. Whereas the assessment that was undertaken dealt with the environmental aspect of it, another big part was the economic benefit to accrue to the local people. Would your assessment deal with that aspect of the matter?
Mr. Schultz: Yes. The social and economic effects of projects will be assessed under the YESAA process. In particular, we will be looking at all aspects of the project, particularly its impacts on local communities, its potential benefits to the community and local peoples, and also to the possible negative effects and what can be done to mitigate any possible negative effects. The whole gamut of issues will be reviewed in the assessment.
Senator Setlakwe: How will this regime affect the prospect of a pipeline from Alaska through the Yukon?
Mr. Schultz: We have had a number of discussions with the National Energy Board, as well as with the representatives within the federal government and the territorial government and amongst our communities. We have had a number of discussions about a singular window assessment in the event that such a pipeline is brought forward. We had numerous discussions on that subject, but it does not look likely, from what I understand now.
Senator Baker: A business or operation that wants to establish in a particular area, because there is a resource there that they want, normally goes to the local government, the provincial administration or territorial administration first, because they have direct control under the Constitution of the land and of what happens with the resources. However, they are not subjected to a process in which they must, if it is demanded, produce the things that could be produced under the requirements of an order from a superior court judge. I cannot think of any similar situation. This is an interesting bill from that aspect.
All in one fell swoop, if something is not happening properly, if a business is just pulling up and leaving and so on, you have a mechanism there to review it, and you have the power of a superior court judge to demand documents and witnesses to appear before you.
Normally, under provincial legislation a self-regulating body would be given that power. If you had an environmental assessment act, they would be given that power under a clause. I have not seen it in a situation where you have a group that wants to ensure that the economic benefits will be maximized for the people and that industry would be potentially subjected to that kind of cross-examination before establishing or changing their industry in that area.
Did you have any representation along the way that perhaps this would be discouraging to a new business?
Mr. Mills: No, we have not had any representations challenging that particular aspect. These judicial powers do not apply just to proponents, but apply to anyone. It provides some comfort of the rights of a proponent to be able to seek information that they believe may be detrimental to them getting a favourable recommendation. We must realize these authorities go beyond just trying to stonewall or impact on industry. If all the information is not available to do an assessment, and you are unable to pull that information, then what do you do as a body that has to issue a recommendation? I assume that you recommend that it not proceed because you are unable to determine whether there is a significant impact. You run into a problem of what the result would be if you do not get all the information that is there. If an intervener comes in with a grand statement around a particular project but is not willing to provide, whether confidential or on the table, the documents to prove it, then it seems that you would have to give very little weight to the arguments that are being put forward by them.
When we look at this, as well as other legislation, we look at it as a tool to ensure that we have all the information necessary so that we can come up with a recommendation on a project. I would not want to see this portrayed as a way to hold them over a barrel or force industry to give up their secrets. This is a power that applies to everyone. The board would only use this power in trying to obtain information that is required to make a decision.
We have not heard concerns with regard to these provisions, and I think that it does give you the answer that it allows the information that is necessary to make a recommendation, and it allows the assessment process to be completed.
Senator Milne: I do not see where in the legislation it provides this necessary protection for confidentiality. This may be something I should ask of the officials when they come later. Clause 118 states:
The Board shall maintain
(a) a register containing all documents that are produced,
Clause 119 states:
Each designated office shall maintain
(a) a register containing all documents that are produced,
Clause 120 states:
(1) Any person has the right to inspect the registers and records referred to in sections 117 to 119 during normal business hours.
If Family A has a traditional hunting ground where they have always gone hunting and get the best furs and have the best trap-line around, and if Family B just goes to the register and finds out where that is, what is to protect Family A?
The Chairman: Can I suggest that you read clause 121 with clause 120? The answer may be contained therein.
Senator Milne: Clause 120 states:
(1) Any person has the right to inspect the registers and records referred to in sections 117 to 119 during normal business hours.
The Chairman: Clause 121 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, the executive committee the designated offices, panels of the Board and decision may not disclose
Senator Milne: Thank you.
The Chairman: I do not know if that fully answer yours question.
Senator Milne: I was not reading far enough.
Senator Milne: It is basically a notwithstanding clause.
The Chairman: I think it might deal with what both of us were worried about.
Senator Baker: Yes, the definition of traditional knowledge.
Senator Milne: I withdraw my question.
Mr. Schultz: In an Aboriginal society, you would know that stuff already. It was not so much a concern that other Aboriginal people would know, because they already know and there is already an understanding between the families of who is where.
The concern is when a commercial interest starts. An example would be when we were first embarking on land claims and starting to disseminate information for the process of negotiation to public orders of government, which were then obliged, as public orders of government, to make that information more generally acceptable. Suddenly, cottage lots along certain waterfronts were being purchased because it was then known that was where the fish go to spawn. Similarly, new hunting lodges were located in areas of prime salt licks, information that our people had always known.
This is where we get concerned, and the unfortunate consequence was that our people started clamming up. They were not even talking to us any more about information because they felt we would give the information to the government and the next thing they would be off the land.
The Chairman: We will be, as you have I am sure gathered, watching very closely over the next while, particularly when the review occurs, to ensure the inclusiveness and the efficacy of this agreement, because as Senator Eyton said, it looks almost too good to be true. I hope that it is true. I hope that it can serve, as you suggested, Grand Chief, as a model, because if it does work, if it does genuinely include everyone, including those members who are not here today represented by you, and their interests, then it will be a marvel that we will all be able to look to it as an example for the direction in which we should go on many things.
Thank you very much for your most informative testimony.
Senator Kenny: I notice there is no television in the room, and we just had a very important hearing that should be available on television. I want to ask you, with the support of the committee, I hope, to write a courteous, as all your letters are, and respectful letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, with a copy to the leader, saying that we have a problem without television. I checked with the clerk. The cameras we have are elsewhere.
Frankly, we need to have enough cameras so that they are here when we are here. It is one of those things that if no one ever mentions it to internal economy or to the leader, then it will not be a problem. I am not saying we should run to their offices screaming and shouting, but we need to consistently build a file on where we are deficient.
We have gone through a situation where we have had good witnesses and a very good hearing, and there is no public record. There are 20 people who know about this, and we could have 30,000 watching it.
I would ask that you append to the letter that we take a firm stick to CPAC, because I note that CPAC is running our last hearing at 2 a.m. Eastern time today and at 11 p.m. Pacific time, which guarantees us an audience of seven people.
We are not the only committee that is consistently getting jerked around by CPAC with lousy times. I will not take up the time of this committee, but all the other committees listed here, including transport, which is having very important hearings of interest right across the country on media, are getting the lousy times too.
I would hope you, on behalf of the committee, would convey our displeasure to the Chair of Internal Economy and our leader so that collectively, as they hear from more and more committees, they get the understanding that it is not in the interests of the Senate not to be covered.
The Chairman: Well said. I think I have everyone's concurrence to do perhaps both of those letters. It is nice to be popular with insomniacs, but we should get to others as well.
Senator Christensen: Mr. Chairman, prior to the minister arriving, we had asked for documents to be tabled regarding the presentation that the Yukon Chamber of Mines had made to the other place. They had given quite an extensive package. I had asked the department to review the documents and give us answers to all of those, and to table with this committee. They had tabled them with my office. I was remiss. I would like to table those documents today with the committee so that they will be part of the record.
The Chairman: We would ask that they be distributed to all members.
Senator Christensen: We have copies for all members.
The Chairman: Thank you. We now have the answers to those questions that we asked, which may be useful to us right now.
Senator Christensen: They are quite extensive.
The Chairman: We have new witnesses before us. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming back on such short notice. I am sorry to have kept you waiting. My credibility in terms of timelines has been completely shot, for which I apologize. This bill is a matter, as you have gathered, of some interest and importance.
I suspect, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Cox, that you do not have anything to say to us and that you would be prepared simply to answer questions. Would you like to begin by saying something to us about this bill?
Mr. John Bailey, Negotiator, Resource Strategies, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: No, Mr. Chairman. You are right. We are here to answer any questions that any of the members may have.
The Chairman: One of the reservations that was expressed to us by Aboriginal people who are not represented by Grand Chief Schultz's group but mainly from people involved in business enterprises, including the Chamber of Commerce and the placer mining association, is that moving the goalpost or changing the rules halfway through the game with respect to applying the assessment processes to existing enterprises that are contained in Bill C-2 does not seem cricket and seems to send a negative message to business.
Could you tell us how you think that will be reacted to by existing businesses, mining and others, in the Yukon?
Mr. Bailey: In terms of how it has been reacted to, you are quite right. We heard concerns, before and throughout our consultations, about some of the provisions that would allow for an assessment of an existing project.
To begin with, we were trying to capture a specific provision of the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement that provides that such assessments will take place if they are requested by the government or First Nation that is responsible for that existing project.
The Chairman: It is not hard to imagine situations in which that would be the case.
Mr. Bailey: Yes. Essentially, the board or designated office cannot reach out and pull these projects in on their own motion. It must be at the request of whatever government, be it First Nation, federal or territorial, that has jurisdiction over that existing project.
That is the first criterion, which comes essentially right from the Umbrella Final Agreement. To somewhat constrain that authority and take away at least some of the optics of potential arbitrariness about such a request, and again in response to some of the concerns that we did hear raised, those requests can only be made if that government has some discretion they can exercise over existing authorizations for that project.
If it was a case where a project had a water licence that is subject to variation, that could be cancelled partway through the life of the project, that is a circumstance where the government responsible could make that request for an assessment of that existing project, so that if they are going to exercise that discretion and vary terms and conditions of a licence halfway through — or cancel it, which could also occur — they will be able to benefit from an arm's-length assessment before they take that sort of action. Therefore, it is not a completely unfettered authority to request. First, you must have jurisdiction over it, and second, you must have some discretion to exercise because otherwise it just becomes a pointless assessment.
The Chairman: Absent that sort of key to get inside the question again, that is to say, some interruption of a licence, for example, no order of government could simply say, willy-nilly, "We will now impose an assessment process on this ongoing business.''
Mr. Bailey: That is correct. You need jurisdiction, and you need discretion to change the rules of the game for the project partway through. If you do not have that discretion, you cannot make the request. If you cannot make the request, the review will not take place.
The Chairman: Is there a mining enterprise that exists in the Yukon that is not subject to the exercise of an interruptive discretion some time during the time of operation? I cannot imagine one. Water might be an example.
Mr. Bailey: My understanding of the regulatory process as it exists now and as it has freshly devolved to the Yukon government is that most if not all authorizations or permits can be varied part way through if that government agency feels it is appropriate.
The Chairman: The key for some order of government bringing about a new assessment under this bill would apply to most business enterprises.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Senator Baker: As I understand it, just from looking at the bill, either one of three parties could initiate such a review panel of an existing project. The federal minister could, and the territorial authority could, if the authority was in some way connected in an administrative way with the existing project. An "administrative way,'' I think, are the words that are used. Do you recall if those are the words used?
Mr. Bailey: That is not precisely the words that are used. We talk about an "administrative authority.''
Senator Baker: The word "administrative'' is used, is it not?
Mr. Bailey: "Administrative authority.''
Senator Baker: That is what I asked. I do not wish to belabour the point. I know it must be with the permission of the federal minister. I grant you that, yes. The federal minister has to agree to a review of an existing industry. The bill also states that if it is not by the minister, if it is not by the territorial authority, if it is by an authority other than that, then it must be with the approval of the minister and the territorial authority. Am I correct?
Mr. Bailey: Not precisely.
Senator Baker: Where am I wrong?
Mr. Bailey: Third parties cannot make the request.
Senator Baker: Who makes the request?
Mr. Bailey: The federal minister if it is a project under federal jurisdiction, and the territorial minister if it is under the territorial jurisdiction, and a First Nation can make a request.
Senator Baker: There you go. Three different groups could initiate. The third group you mentioned must have the approval of the minister.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Senator Baker: The third group must have the approval of the minister and the territorial authority if the territorial authority is in some way connected to the project in an administrative way.
Mr. Bailey: I should clarify what "administration'' means in this case, because that is a defined term.
Senator Baker: That is the word in the bill, though.
Mr. Bailey: "Administrative authority'' is defined. As I mentioned earlier, for the Yukon government to be an administrative authority over a project means it must have some regulatory authority over it in that it has issued authorizations for that project to exist.
Senator Baker: Is that the exact wording used in this bill? Could you read it?
Mr. David Cox, Counsel, Comprehensive Claims and Northern Affairs/ Self-Government and Strategic Direction, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Honourable senators, according to subsection 94(1),
In sections 95 to 101, "administrative authority'', in relation to a review of an existing project, means a government agency, an independent regulatory agency, a municipal government or a first nation that
(a) is the operator of the existing project,
(b) has the power to assume the operation of or to shut down the existing project, or
(c) has the power to amend, suspend or revoke an authorization that was issued, or to modify, suspend or withdraw an interest in the land that was granted,
There has to be the power, as Mr. Bailey previously explained, to affect that project. It goes on to discuss the inclusion of the Governor in Council.
Senator Baker: Subsection 95 (1)(c):
At the request of the first nation and with the consent of
(i) the federal minister and
(ii) the territorial minister, where a territorial agency, a municipal government or a territorial independent regulatory agency is an administrative authority for the existing project.
My point is that if there is a problem and an existing industry is substantially changing its operations and everyone is very concerned and upset, then you do have a mechanism under the bill. Yes, I grant you the territorial authority could say "no'' to such a review, or the federal minister to say "no'' to such a review, but the federal minister is a politician, and certainly you would not have people saying "no'' to the review. It is not at all out of the question that you would have the powers of a panel reviewing an existing industry that is either changing its operations or relocating for whatever reason, and that industry would then be subjected to the powers of the panel, meaning the investigative powers for the production of documents, papers, and the requirement that a witness must answer all questions in conducting that review by that panel. Was that a question?
The Chairman: It would be if you said, "Is that true?''
Senator Baker: Is that true?
Mr. Bailey: Where a First Nation requests a review of an existing project, it does require the approval or consent of the minister responsible for this legislation, the minister of DIAND. If that project is under the jurisdiction of the territorial government, then their minister is designated to act for them on their behalf.
I realize that there are politicians involved. However, given the nature of this sort of request and what the implications would be in terms of requiring an assessment, and considering the cost and time that it would require not just of the proponent but of many other individuals and groups, that a First Nation would very carefully consider making such a request. Both the territorial and the federal minister will carefully consider whether they should provide their consent in that case because of the attendant costs, and if it is a project under their jurisdiction, it is really something for which they are responsible.
My faith in First Nations and the judgment of all those who would be involved in that circumstance would be that they would take that responsibility seriously and we would not have gratuitous reviews.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any particular feeling one way or the other on the appropriateness of the authority granted. When you have a situation like this, a government is sometimes forced into a situation. What can they do? They can have a judicial review. They can have a royal commission. The authority is built into the act. The authority is there to circumvent all of this and provide some immediate relief for those requests.
Is there any similar act that you can think of that actually gives the panel the authority for the production of papers and the requirement that witnesses from business operations must testify before a hearing? Can you think of anything similar, apart from a royal commission, the Environmental Protection Act or something like that? Would you say that this is a first?
Mr. Cox: The answer is no, this is not a first. It is very common to give a tribunal the power to conduct their affairs in order to get to a decision that will stand up to judicial review.
Senator Baker: That is a regulatory board.
Mr. Cox: Yes, regulatory boards. There are many other boards that have the same power. In addition to what has already been said on the matter, it should be stated that the judicial powers would include the right to invoke procedures in a court-like manner to ensure the confidentiality of information at the request of the proponent, the First Nation or whomever. It should be recognized that the powers are not simply to obtain documents but to ensure that in the obtaining of those documents confidentiality is maintained. Included and on top of that we have the provision that was cited previously.
Senator Baker: Can you show me that in the bill?
Mr. Cox: No.
Senator Baker: You would assure confidentiality by regulation?
Mr. Cox: No. The clause we discussed that was raised was clause 121. Essentially the provision ensures that the test for disclosure of information is the test that currently applies under federal law, which is the Access to Information Act. The release of information by the board will be the same as it currently is for a government institution under current legislation.
Senator Milne: We must add to that "traditional knowledge.''
Mr. Cox: That is correct. I was speaking more with reference to the economic aspect, but it would also apply to traditional knowledge.
Senator Baker: Clause 121(b) states:
(b) information to any person or body that a government institution, within the meaning of the Access to Information Act, would not be required to disclose pursuant to a request by that person or body under that act, unless
i) the provider of the information consents to its disclosure, and
(ii) The person would or body is not required to disclose
the information pursuant to a request under a territorial or first nation law, and agrees to keep the information confidential.
I am not concerned about that part of the act. I am concerned about is that no business is required to tell any agency information concerning its private business plans. The Department of the Environment can tell you that if you want to put an industry here you have to abide by this act. However, the department is unable to ask where the business is getting its money from to start the business.
My point is, you do not think that there would be a hesitancy on the part of a business to be required to give this information, whereas under normal circumstances that would not be required by a government agency; is that correct?
Mr. Cox: I would say that you have to question whether or not that particular piece of information would be relevant to the issue before the board. I suspect it would not be.
The issue is to examine economic benefits and impacts. To that extent, I would think there would be a sound argument for someone to make in such a hearing that it is irrelevant.
Senator Baker: The question of relevancy has case law behind it.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the case of the Inuvialuit, again. The Northwest Territories and Yukon share borders. The Inuvialuit in their land claims agreement have rights to lands in the Yukon. Under their agreement, they have the ability to have the environmental impact review board consider matters of development or any activity that would go on in their lands including the North Slope area.
Do officials see the potential for conflict here in the sense that under this bill an assessment can occur in that area? Have they considered and thought through the potential for conflict here and how it would be dealt with?
Mr. Bailey: We have considered that quite often and had a number of discussions with the Inuvialuit and the various boards that are set up under that agreement to conduct assessments there.
In the bill we have tried to recognize that we have two different land claim agreements that provide for an assessment process for the same area. We have tried to ensure that, in the event there is a project proposed there, we minimize or eliminate altogether any potential conflict or duplication between them.
To that end, if their review board takes on a project that is referred to it, this process stands down and lets that be the only process that occurs so that we do not have any duplication at that level.
At the lower level, where we do not have a similar situation, we require in this bill that the assessors under this legislation work with the assessors under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and collaborate with them. They make efforts to do that. Obviously, you need two people to collaborate.
As I think Mr. Mills mentioned earlier, we also have provisions that the assessors here can use the work of the assessors under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement process in lieu of doing it over again. We have tried to do that to minimize duplication and also to ensure that we have consistent recommendations if there are some coming from both processes.
It is conceivable, though it is quite a stretch that their process could come up with a different recommendation from this one. Their process is a little more narrow in scope. They do not deal with socio-economic issues. They are more focused on impacts on the Inuvialuit and their harvesting rights and so on. This is a broader process. In that case, government agencies may be faced some time with a circumstance where they are getting a recommendation from the Inuvialuit process to take a certain course of action and a recommendation from this one to take a different course of action. That would leave the government agencies with the circumstance where they would have to weigh the recommendations and sort out which direction they wish to take.
It is possible but it is highly unlikely that it would ever occur, because we have these people working together throughout the assessment process so that they come up with consistent decisions.
The Chairman: In the event that that did happen what would occur?
Mr. Bailey: As a government agency, theoretically you could be faced with a certain recommendation from the Inuvialuit environmental screening and review process to allow a project to go ahead, for example. You might get a recommendation under this process that the project not be allowed to proceed.
The Chairman: Looking at it the other way around, one of the Inuvialuit's big concerns is the migratory herd that goes through the North Slope.
Have I got that wrong? Were they not concerned about that?
Senator Christensen: That is one of their concerns, but not a major one.
The Chairman: If "A'' says "yes'' and "B'' says "no,'' because of the migratory herd, which is not a consideration in "A'', who will prevail? Who will decide?
Mr. Bailey: First, neither process decides anything. That is the key here. This process is captured in this bill. Similarly, the Inuvialuit screening review process is dealt with directly in their land claim. It is not the subject of separate legislation. These are advisory groups that give advice on whether projects should proceed or not. They are not actually making the decision. It is not a circumstance where one would trump the other or one has higher precedence than the other. They both have different contexts.
If it ever happened, I am sure it would place the responsible government agency in an awkward position, but government is in the business of trying to make decisions in some of those circumstances.
The Chairman: Neither of those pieces of advice would necessarily, under this or any other piece of legislation, trump the other as a matter of course.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Senator Sibbeston: In a situation like that, would it be the federal minister who would make the final decision?
Mr. Bailey: It would depend on who is the decision maker for that project. Right now, it could be either the federal government, if it is a federal type of project, or it could be the territorial government. The territorial government now has jurisdiction over the lands in the North Slope.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, the likely kind of project to occur would be in the area of the development of an oil pipeline, or gas drilling or so on. Has that jurisdiction now been transferred to the Yukon government?
Mr. Bailey: Decisions concerning the construction of a pipeline rests with the National Energy Board. If there were a pipeline through the North Slope of the Yukon or elsewhere, if it is crossing a border, the National Energy Board is still involved, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would continue to have application because we are dealing with multiple jurisdictions.
Senator Sibbeston: In terms of drilling, I take it that responsibility has been transferred to the Yukon government.
Mr. Bailey: Yes, that was some years ago. Prior to this last devolution round on April 1, the Yukon government has authority over oil and gas.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Bailey, when you were here before the committee last time, you said that there were extensive consultations with the public and all stakeholders. Since that time, we heard from some community stakeholders who have told us that the consultation process was more "like a salesmanship of a forgone conclusion.'' Those are the words that these people used. A representative of the Yukon Chamber of Commerce said:
One major point we want to leave with you today is to disabuse you of the notion that there has been full and fair good faith consultation on this legislation to this point. This is patently not the case.
I would like to have your response to that statement. Would you be specific in examples of just how the public and the stakeholders were not only given the opportunity to receive information but how they were able to provide input and how their input was incorporated into this bill.
Mr. Bailey: I was not here on Tuesday, but I did hear about some of the statements that were made and read some of the transcripts. I would have to say that I am disappointed to hear some of the comments, particularly in light of some of the consultation that has been undertaken over the last seven years that we have been working on this bill.
In terms of what those consultations have consisted of over the last six years, the minister spoke to this to some extent the first time we were here. There have been three comprehensive consultation sessions involving touring all of the communities in the territory and involving getting special cabinet permission to distribute to stakeholder groups and others actual drafts of the legislation, which is quite unusual, as I think the committee has likely learned. We distributed drafts quite widely in the territory and elsewhere on two occasions, back in 1998 and again in 2001.
We would follow up distribution of these drafts with meetings with stakeholder groups, public sessions and so on, so that the public and stakeholders were fully aware of what was in the draft legislation. As honourable senators will appreciate, it is quite a complicated bill. We had these information sessions to ensure that the public and others who were reviewing it and who we asked for comments could fully understand it.
To back that up, we also set up an Internet Web site that people could go to that had further information in layperson's terms about how the bill operated and so on.
On both of these occasions we then allowed for a three-month period for these different groups and individuals to provide us with comments. They could write them, phone, or raise them at a meeting. Our undertaking was that we would give all those comments very serious consideration.
In the case of the federal government, we had a team that at times numbered up to 10 or 11 people, including legal counsel, who would go through each and every suggestion that we received, and we received quite a few, from the public and stakeholder groups, and analyze, first of all, whether it was something we could even consider or if it was contrary to the land claim. If it was something we could consider, then we started to work into what the interest was and to try to accommodate those things to the best of our ability while still maintaining consistency with the land claim.
We would then discuss these with the First Nations and with the Yukon government, who each have been conducting a similar exercise of their analysis of these comments and suggestions we received. Then we would meet and try to reach consensus on changes that we would make to the legislation to reflect those.
We made many changes to this legislation over the past seven years, directly as a result of meetings that we had with some of the groups and individuals that appeared here the other day. On behalf of the group that I have headed up that analyzed these and spent the hours, days, weeks and months going over these in detail, I am sort of disappointed, because they worked very hard to give those comments consideration. We all worked very hard to include or try to speak to those suggestions in the legislation to the degree we could. It is disappointing to hear the consultations characterized in the manner that they were the other day.
Senator Cochrane: The people that spoke to us were from the Chamber of Commerce and other industry people. These are the people whose life and blood depends on business and how legislation will affect their business.
You can appreciate that 29,000 people is not very large number to distribute a document to and not have in-detail talks about the finer things. Not all these people have the time, because they are from a small town and they are just trying to provide a living for themselves and their families. They do not have fax machines, computers or e-mails to relay the information to Ottawa or to the main body.
I can sense their frustration. I really can. I just cannot accept distributing documents. You need to be there to hear the rural people. I am from that area. I know exactly how they feel.
Mr. Bailey: Just to be clear, all those that worked on developing this bill, the people that were here earlier today and so on, are from the Yukon. I am from there myself. It is my home, and I actually operate a couple of businesses there myself. I understand the context in which you are speaking. This was not a case of someone coming up from Ottawa and passing a paper around and flying back to the nation's capital to wait to see if the fax machine starts up. These were Yukon people consulting with other Yukon people on what they thought should be in the legislation.
This did not involve any or many people coming up from down south, people who were not from the Yukon. That is why we wanted to have this be something that was developed in the Yukon and would meet the interests of Yukoners to the extent that it did.
Senator Cochrane: If you are a businessman, then you must be part of the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Bailey: Not right now.
Senator Cochrane: I am sure that you have some co-workers that you deal. Have you heard any comments from them about this bill?
Mr. Bailey: Over the years I have heard many of the comments that you have heard here in this committee. We have had dialogue with the chamber about the Chamber of Commerce and chamber of mines and many other groups that you have not heard from who have suggestions that we simply were unable to follow up on. We have had discussions with them about why we did not or would not follow up on some of those suggestions.
I have been involved in a lot of consultation and sometimes when people are consulted and their suggestions are not taken completely, or to the degree they wish they were, they tend to have a concern that they were not consulted because their issue did not find its way to the floor.
Senator Cochrane: I know where you are coming from.
Mr. Bailey: That has happened quite a bit in this process.
Senator Cochrane: We will have to wait and see, I guess.
Senator Christensen: At the same time the draft legislation was circulated, there were also draft regulations circulated. It is so often said, "the devil is in the detail,'' and the regulations are the detail. They are the nuts and bolts of how things will happen. I think that the majority of the concerns that were raised the other day were with the regulations as opposed to the legislation. There were concerns with the legislation, but they were minor compared to the concerns with the regulations that were first circulated. The very low level that will trigger an assessment on a property is one example. A fly tent camp would fall under the regulations as they were first proposed. The timelines that were in those regulations raised many red flags as far as the industry was concerned.
Could you explain to us where the regulations are at this time and what opportunities there are for industry to have input into those regulations before they are finalized? As we know, regulations are easier to change than legislation.
Mr. Bailey: To back up a little about the regulations that are being worked on right now, they are not so much detailing the process as they are putting the detail on what sort of activities will be subject to assessment.
Senator Christensen: The process of the assessment falls under the board; is that correct? The board is charged with coming up with rules and regulations.
Mr. Bailey: That is correct.
Senator Christensen: They have 18 months to come up with that, and that goes through a public review as well, but there is another set of regulations.
Mr. Bailey: The project regulations have to be in place for this process to operate, because that is what lets us know what is subject to assessment and what is not.
In 1998 we prepared a draft that included listings of all the activities that we thought would be subject to this process and which ones were excluded. That was part of our first broad consultation that we did in association with the draft of the bill. We did that, and we received some feedback at that time after our 1998 consultations.
We then did a revision of those listings and tried to make it more user-friendly, which was a principal concern of ours. We sent out another draft of the proposed contents of such a regulation back with our package in 2001. We did again receive quite a bit of input at that time. We have had a number of follow-up discussions, including many with the chamber of mines about the specific issued that they raised the other day about these varying thresholds.
We have already had two very detailed rounds of consultations on the regulations, and they have not even been drafted yet. This is well before we actually got into the formal drafting that will occur once this bill has been passed and there is the authority there to draft them.
In terms of future opportunities, once the regulations have been drafted, and we are hoping that will be later in this calendar year, there is a requirement that they be pre-published in draft form and a minimum of 60 days be allowed for study and for comment to be provided by public groups, stakeholder groups or whomever. Following that time, submissions can be made, and there can be changes made to those regulations prior to them being finalized. That opportunity is there and is guaranteed for not just the mining industry and stakeholders but for all the public.
In addition to that, we are also working very closely with the Yukon government and with First Nations on these regulations because they deal with activities that are under their jurisdiction. We will also be having ongoing consultations, or collaboration because we are trying to capture activities under their jurisdiction, and we want to ensure that that is being done properly in a technical sense.
Senator Christensen: Will this third round involve the territorial and First Nations governments in the final drafting of this regulation?
Mr. Bailey: Not the final drafting. It is involved in the "draft drafting,'' if you like.
Senator Christensen: Will that also be sent out to industry at that point?
Mr. Bailey: The next opportunity for industry will be once they are gazetted and pre-published, and then they will have an opportunity to see the draft regulations. We are hoping that will be some time in the late fall or early winter.
The Chairman: Is that a 30-day window?
Senator Christensen: No, 60 days.
Mr. Bailey: That is a minimum. Again, from an operational perspective, depending when this bill is actually given Royal Assent, assuming that it is, we have 18 months until the whole bill comes into force, so we certainly hope that those regulations would be completed well within that 18-month time period.
Senator Christensen: In this third draft before the pre-gazetting, which is 60 or more days, the input that industry could have would be through First Nations and the territorial government?
Mr. Bailey: They could. From what I saw of the transcript, I do not think the chamber mentioned that their concerns with those regulations are fairly well understood and the business about the thresholds. Without getting into a detailed discussion, there have been many discussions with them about why, first of all, class 2 mining land use regulation permits will be caught, which was an overall concern, and why some of those thresholds vary, because at the mining interest's request, those mining land use regulations established thresholds that were different from land use permits anywhere else in the territory.
Their concern is that some of those are triggered at lower thresholds on mining claims than they are for anyone else on some other type of land. However, the converse of that is true. There are many things that you or I would need a permit to do in the Yukon, and there would be an assessment done of that. That would not be the case if it were on a mining claim. Those issues have been discussed and are quite well understood by those who are trying to finalize the draft regulations for publication.
Senator Christensen: You can appreciate why the industry is so concerned. The government is basically saying, "Trust me, we have your best interest at heart.'' We have seen what is happening in the placer mining industry right now, and government really does not inspire a lot of trust. It is very important that we do keep industry well involved. I am sure industry will try to get as much as they can, knowing that compromise has to be made as well. There has to be a good avenue for industry to be involved before that finalization.
Mr. Bailey: As I said, there have been other discussions not related to formal consultations on the bill and on the regulations. I have had correspondence with the president of the chamber of mines on that specific issue as well as some others. The minister had a meeting with them back a year ago and actually received correspondence from the president of the chamber thanking the minister for some changes that were made as a result of discussions at those meetings. There has been some ongoing dialogue.
The difficulty with distributing further drafts of regulations is that industry is not the only group that has an interest in what is in the regulations. We have 18 months to try to prepare these, but the drafting is somewhat complex, and we do not see having another full round of consultation on something we have already consulted on widely and in detail on two occasions to be appropriate at this time.
Senator Christensen: The five-year review is another issue that has been raised by most of the interveners who have problems with the bill. What is your position on the five-year review or having a second review required in the act?
Mr. Bailey: Certainly our position has been that we do not require one in the legislation. There is an existing requirement in the land claim agreement for a comprehensive review of the whole assessment process to be conducted. In our minds, it is hard to conceive how that would occur without a detailed review of the legislation. We also had concerns about including such a provision in the legislation and whether we would be creating two obligations to be met in terms of conducting a five-year review and run the risk of potential conflict and duplication.
Senator Christensen: Are you satisfied that you have taken into consideration many of the problems that were raised or that occurred as a result of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act which is similar to this one but was introduced a number of years ago? It did have problems. Have those problems been looked at and taken into consideration adequately in the new legislation?
Mr. Bailey: Yes. We looked at the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and many other existing processes, some of which have some virtues and some of which have some drawbacks. We tried to learn from all of those so we would put the best foot forward with this process.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. I want everyone to be aware that Mr. Bailey was called back from his holiday in New Orleans today, on no notice, to speak to us. He is going back tomorrow.
I do not apologize, Mr. Bailey because we needed to hear from you and Mr. Cox today, but I thank you very much for doing that. It is above and beyond the call of duty. Yours and Mr. Cox's testimony was very important to us this morning.
Is it the wish of members that we should proceed at this point to deal with the bill?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Milne: I move we go to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: I can entertain a motion to dispense with clause-by-clause.
Senator Baker: In the presence of Mr. Bailey and Mr. Cox and Mr. Mills, who have spent many years dealing this bill, I would move that the committee dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and approve the bill without amendments.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cochrane: I think that is rather rash.
The Chairman: It is agreed. Thank you. Is it agreed that the chair report this bill without amendment at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.