AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 10, 1998

• 1546

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): Hello, everyone. Last night was a long one, so I appreciate all the committee members' presence here today.

Today, Wednesday June 10, 1998, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are resuming our study of Aboriginal Economic Development. Our witness is from the Mining Association of Canada. She is Mrs. Gisèle Jacob, Vice-president of Public Affairs.

Mrs. Jacob, you have a presentation to make. You may read it, and I must indicate right off that it will be on the Internet and accessible throughout Canada and the rest of the world. Go right ahead with your reading.

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob (Vice-President, Public Affairs, Mining Association of Canada): Mr. Chairman, committee members, before I begin, I would like to thank you for having me here this afternoon. I had hoped to bring some mining industry colleagues with me to give you some examples of aboriginal involvement in various mining activities, but unfortunately some last minute adjustments had to be made, and so you have me for the afternoon. I will do my best to represent them.

My text is in English, but I will be pleased to provide you with certain sections in French if you wish, and I will certainly respond to your questions in French, if you so desire.

[English]

I would like to start with a quote, which you see in the text before you:

Aboriginal peoples are entitled to opportunities to participate fully in mineral development at all stages of mining and associated industries and at all employment levels.

This statement comes from the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, a multi-stakeholder process that was initiated by the mining industry involving representatives of the industry, federal and provincial governments, labour unions, aboriginal peoples, and environmental groups. It was a process that took 18 months, between 1992 and 1994.

Out of the process came the Leadership Council Accord, and in the accord there was a vision statement for a healthy mining industry in the context of maintaining healthy and diverse ecosystems in Canada and sharing opportunities with aboriginal peoples.

The Leadership Council Accord calls for improving the investment climate for investors; streamlining and harmonizing regulatory and tax regimes; ensuring the participation of aboriginal peoples in all aspects of mining; adopting sound environmental practices; establishing an ecologically based system of protected areas; providing workers with healthy and safe environments and a continued high standard of living; recognition and respect for aboriginal treaty rights; settling of aboriginal land claims; guaranteeing stakeholder participation where the public interest is affected; and creating a climate for innovative and effective responses to change.

Now you know why it lasted 18 months. It was quite an involved process. It had all of the stakeholders at the table, and out of that came a vision statement, 16 principles, and over 70 goals under each of those topics I mentioned earlier. This is the backdrop I've used to focus my presentation on. It is the major policy statement of the mining industry.

• 1550

I would like to speak to you briefly on the mining industry and give you some facts and figures. I'd like to speak briefly again on socio-economic arrangements that are in place between the industry and aboriginal peoples, look at the opportunities and challenges in the relationship, and conclude with a look to the future and a request for your support in some key areas.

We believe, and certainly the numbers attest to it, the mining industry is a foundation of Canada's economy. In 1997 the minerals and metals industry contributed $26.2 billion to the Canadian economy, an amount equal to almost 4% of the national gross domestic product. That contribution, however, does not take into account the total contribution of the mining industry. For example, more than 600 companies in Canada receive over 30% of their revenues from supplying the mining industry. In Canada, the mining-related service sector includes geophysical surveys, consulting and instrumentation, mining engineering and contracting, environmental management, mining equipment and services, shelters, tents and camps, to name just a few.

In 1997 the industry directly employed 368,000 Canadians. Many of these jobs are located in northern and remote areas of the country, where, as you know, the largest populations of our aboriginal peoples are located. In comparison to other industrial sectors, average weekly wages in the industry are the highest in the country at over $1,000 a week.

In the fall of 1998 the first Canadian commercial production of diamonds will commence in the Northwest Territories, again with a large area of aboriginal population.

Canada remains one of the top destinations in the world for exploration investment, second only to Australia. In early 1997 an exploration expenditure survey of over 600 project operators identified intentions to spend $876 million on Canadian exploration. So we are talking about high numbers, and an important contribution to the economy and the well-being of many Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, much of the mining activity occurs in northern and remote areas of the country, which again are in the principal areas of aboriginal populations.

According to an RCAP research report, the royal commission on aboriginal participation, 30% of aboriginal communities are located within a 50-mile radius of a producing mine. Again, those are important numbers to keep in mind when you look at aboriginal economic development and the role the mining industry can have in that economic development.

There are many important mining companies in Canada, such as Placer Dome, Cominco, Syncrude, Inco, etc., which have in place policies, programs, and agreements with aboriginal communities located at or near their exploration or mine sites. I have with me a copy of Placer Dome's commitment to aboriginal people, and they cover many of the issues that affect aboriginal peoples today.

Other companies also have policies and usually describe the company's commitment to consult and involve local aboriginal peoples in all phases of mineral development. They recognize the value of traditional knowledge and respect for traditional lifestyles. They acknowledge the need for cross-cultural training, and they identify opportunities for training, employment and business arrangements with aboriginal communities.

There are also socio-economic agreements—at times we see them as impact and benefits agreements—that vary from project to project, depending on local needs. By the way, I would like to comment that we would not recommend standard socio-economic agreements because those needs vary from one region to another, depending on the mine operations, the ore that is being mined, and the tax regime surrounding that specific ore body. So those agreements vary from region to region, depending on the local situation. The negotiations also sometimes vary. They may be directly between a company and a local community or local communities. Sometimes governments get involved.

• 1555

In most provinces and territories of this country, those agreements are entered into voluntarily. However, some jurisdictions, like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, do require these companies to negotiate agreements, and again, the requirements for negotiations vary from one province to another.

However, these agreements do typically cover certain broad areas. One is employment and training opportunities, including recruitment. Many agreements include the establishment of an aboriginal liaison coordinator who helps the access between the company and aboriginal communities. They look at job descriptions and how they can better reflect the lifestyle of the aboriginal community, counselling, cross-cultural training, etc. They also include provisions for the establishment of economic development and business opportunities—contract work, capacity building for the establishment of small companies that provide services to the mines, etc.

There's also usually a social, cultural, and community support program, again based on the need of the community. It covers areas such as schools, hospitals, communications programs, environmental protection, etc.

Most of these agreements also have an administrative section that looks at setting up the ability to create and nurture and attend committees that have monitoring responsibilities under the agreement.

There are also funding arrangements that fall under the agreement, and certainly legal rights and aspects relating to the aboriginal rights in the area are also identified in the agreements.

Those are the general aspects of those socio-economic agreements.

I would like to highlight two, one being the one Placer Dome North America has negotiated with regard to their Musselwhite agreement. I'd like to highlight some of the aspects of that agreement, because I think it's typical of some of the contexts within which those agreements get negotiated.

Discussion on the Musselwhite agreement started in 1989. The agreement was signed in 1992 and actually took formal effect at the time the mine went into production, which was 1996.

The agreement was negotiated with four first nations groups and two tribal councils. As I mentioned, it covered environmental issues. There is funding included in the agreement for environmental assessment. There's environmental planning and monitoring by the community of the mine site and the water and the effluents. There's early notification of environmental problems at the site to the communities. There's been an agreement to ban the use of certain chemicals and to have the communities involved in the environmental decision-making of the company.

There are also cultural and heritage aspects involved in the agreement. There has been extensive mapping of important locations for the aboriginal communities, and extensive discussions on how those areas would be treated by the company and the aboriginal communities.

Jobs: there has been some discussion on opportunities for employment and training with the site, with the communities in the area. To date, a little less than half of the jobs are taken by aboriginal workers. Even though the goal was 25%, that goal has been surpassed. There is also training assistance provided for the employees.

There was the establishment of various businesses—road construction, air transportation, freight, laundry, catering, etc.

There have been agreements also regarding social issues. The mine site is alcohol- and drug-free. There are employee assistance programs. The company is providing funding to social and youth development, etc., plus, as I mentioned earlier, some administrative funding for various administrative requirements of the act.

• 1600

You've been to northern Quebec. I understand you have not had an opportunity to visit the Raglan mine. Unfortunately, we were not able to arrange that for you. But again, this is another area where there have been important negotiations with the community in northern Quebec, regarding the Raglan project. Again, it focuses on training and employment, business opportunities, environmental and cultural issues.

What does the company get out of the agreements? Of course it's very important. These agreements have to be a win-win for both parties. For the company, out of the agreements come to them some important aspects, and certainly those include access to land, which is a fundamental need of the industry; access to the resources; of course, local supplies of workers, and their knowledge of the environment and of the land around them; and in some cases, through government supports, some financial assistance for training and other business opportunities.

Negotiating the agreements and implementing them is not always easy. There are some difficulties, and I want to point them out to you. I think it would be naive to say that all of this is easy. It's not. Some of the major difficulties or major challenges are as follows:

There are basic educational shortfalls in the aboriginal communities. I know there are complaints at times that they're getting the lower end or the least-paying jobs, but one of the major problems is the lack of basic education or industrial experience on their part.

Many aboriginal communities also initially have concerns about developing a wage economy in their communities. Even if the unemployment situation is high, many of them place a high value on traditional lifestyles and are reluctant to enter into agreements that will develop wage economies in their communities.

There are differences in languages and cultures, not only between the company and the community, but often many different nations or bands are involved in the same negotiations. Their cultures are different. Their languages are different, as are their needs, their requirements. Their lack of understanding— And expectations are different. So this is another challenge.

The negotiation process itself sometimes is foreign to how communities work out consensus-building in terms of different parties, so there is also the educational process with regard to negotiation itself.

The multiplicity of issues is another complex situation. Expectations on what can and cannot be negotiated vary, and sometimes there are many, many issues on the table that the company is not able to address directly. So, again, that's another factor affecting the complexity of those negotiations.

Certainly many companies have come to realize that they need to address cultural, environmental, spiritual and lifestyle issues first, and then address the economic aspects of the relationship between the two. That has been an important lesson for our companies and one that is certainly being shared among the companies themselves.

However, I believe those challenges also mean opportunities. The companies I've mentioned earlier that have policies and programs and agreements in place have also put in place some cross-cultural training programs. They are sharing their learning experiences with others so that future relationships can be built on lessons of the past. They are devising training and job descriptions, schedules and arrangements that are more compatible with aboriginal lifestyles, beliefs and values. However, we also need efficient government programs, especially in education and capacity-building for business areas, to complement the companies' efforts.

If we look to the future, we believe Canada's mining industry can have a positive impact on both the social and the economic well-being of Canada's aboriginal communities. However, there are a number of challenges, and we do look to government to address some of these unfortunate issues.

• 1605

We believe there are two major issues where government can play a key role. One, as I mentioned earlier, is in the area of education. Even though mining companies can provide skills training, and to a certain extent basic education, we do need to rely on the higher-skilled and higher-educated workforce. So we believe if you look at the economic development of aboriginal peoples, you should also provide funding or programs that allow aboriginal youths to stay in school.

We have numbers, and certainly the 1996 census, that show that over half of the aboriginal population does not have a high school diploma, compared to 35% of the non-aboriginal population. Only 4.5% of the aboriginal population has a university degree, compared to 16% of the rest of the population. Those are important numbers, and if we are serious about aboriginal economic self-sufficiency, education is a key area that needs to be supported.

The second area where we believe you have an important role to play—and that is addressed mostly to the mining industry—is in the area of certainty. It is very difficult to attract mining investment and mining capital when companies are not certain if they hold titles or if they will keep title to the discoveries they are part of.

To support that, there are two major things we would ask of you. One is with regard to the Supreme Court's Delgamuukw decision, which has certainly brought about a lot of uncertainty with respect to title and how that impacts on the mining industry. The industry fears that the only way the Delgamuukw decision and its scope will be defined will be through court challenges over the next 10 to 20 years. We believe that's not the way to go, and certainly government has a role to play in defining aboriginal title and clarifying the consequences of the Delgamuukw decision.

We also call upon you to settle land claims expeditiously, fairly and efficiently. We have been calling upon government to do that. That again increases certainty, both for aboriginal peoples and for the mining industry. So we would like you to include those recommendations to government in the work you're doing.

Within a clear regulatory and policy framework, with efficient government programs that focus on education and capacity-building and community infrastructure for aboriginal communities, with those two pillars, we certainly believe Canada's mining industry can play an important role in the economic development of our aboriginal peoples and at the same time continue to be competitive and profitable.

[Translation]

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Jacob. That was a most interesting presentation, in fact I must tell you it was really fantastic. Have you had the opportunity to visit the Raglan mine?

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob: No. It will be opened officially on July 15. Unfortunately, I will not be able to go, but the Association President will. I did visit the BHP diamond mine site in the Northwest Territories, and had an opportunity at that time to meet with some of the aboriginal people who had been hired there. I have also visited other mines with aboriginal employees.

The Chairman: I have just come back from Abitibi, and had an opportunity to visit the Raglan mine in the north. It is true that it is far away, one of the most distant mines. It is north of the 60th parallel.

Now, for questions.

Mr. Konrad

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of comments before I ask you a question.

On page 3, you talk about taking into account traditional activities, that type of thing, and it seems to me that we take into account the aboriginal lifestyle in an area, but anybody else who lives in the area who maybe shares a lifestyle doesn't share in the benefits of an agreement that is meant to protect the people.

That's a quick comment on that, and I don't know what, if anything, there is to do about it.

• 1610

It also seems like the current economics of the moment drives the treaty process. Treaties, of course, last forever. They're not up for negotiation again. Communities are established, infrastructure is built in, and costs—when the mine shuts down, the economic activity moves on—continue to be borne by Canada's taxpayers.

I would like you to address that a little bit. What happens when the wage economy collapses, which it always does in terms of a mine? We have had this process driven by current economics rather than long-term economics. If we're looking at economic development, it can't be economic development for the life of a mine, which may be five or ten years.

I have just a further thing. I think one of the most important is the mention of Delgamuukw. If you've watched the House of Commons lately you'll see that it has been the subject of many questions of the Minister of Indian Affairs. We see it as a strong deterrent.

I'm wondering what you think the fall-off will be in terms of economic development. You've given us some figures here that state a benchmark. Do you think that things will hold pretty much the same, will they fall off the cliff, or will it be just a gradual downturn as development dollars move elsewhere?

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: Let me start with your first question regarding the immediate economic viability versus the more long-term economic viability, especially in remote areas where many of the mining activities occur.

Certainly a mine does not last forever. It can last for quite a long period of time, but you're right that it does not last forever. However, during the life of a mine, with the economic opportunities and benefits that accrue from the operation of that mine and through the agreements and through the entrepreneurial opportunities that are offered to aboriginal peoples, there is a hope that the community can diversify its economy, acquire skills that can then be adapted to other opportunities, and build infrastructures that allow the community to then continue to have economic activities in other areas that are not directly related to the mine.

There are also areas where with the employment opportunities or the way the mine is set up, there is no community built around the mine. It's a fly-in, fly-out operation. Employees come from existing communities to the mine and then bring back their salary dollars to the community, but the community itself is not directly impacted by the operations of the mine. So there are various arrangements across Canada.

I agree with you that a mine is not a long-term arrangement, but it can hopefully bring in an influx of training, upgrading, or a wide range of skills that are transportable to other areas. There's the building of infrastructure that can address the social needs of the community, such as schools. Over time, hopefully, the community can use those tools to diversify its own economy and become more self-sufficient.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Don't forget Delgamuukw, which I just brought up here. I'm putting forth with the committee a motion that we study the impact of the Delgamuukw decision on the B.C. economy, which of course also affects the livelihood of aboriginal and non-aboriginals alike.

Would you continue your answer, please?

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: I haven't done an in-depth study of the impact of Delgamuukw, but I certainly hear my colleagues in the industry, especially those out of B.C., expressing a lot of concern about the consequences of Delgamuukw. They already find that it is becoming more and more difficult to attract investment in B.C. because of the uncertainty.

• 1615

In negotiating with aboriginal groups, their positions are becoming harder, and there's often the threat of going to court to get their rights. It's changing the tone of the negotiation. So it's creating, certainly, a lot of concern about the impact on the investment in British Columbia.

There's also concern, rightly or wrongly, that this may spread to certain other areas of Canada, and that the relationship may be affected by the consequences of Delgamuukw. It certainly causes a lot of concern for the mining and resource sector.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): A mine is a bit like a person. From the time we are born, we are headed toward death, and from the time a mine opens, it is headed toward death as well.

I would like to thank you and congratulate you on your fine presentation. I will ask some informed questions, because I have 5,000 people in my riding who make a living from mining. There is IOC, an iron mine, Quebec Cartier Mining, another iron mine, the Wabush Mines, a third iron mine. There is QIT-Fer et Titane, at Havre-Saint-Pierre. Others have been staked and will be opening up soon.

I look at this and I find that there are good wages for people in mining. They live in a community where they are happy, and they are taking part in the economy. For example, in Fermont, Quebec Cartier Mining employs 1,250 men and women, while sub-contractors employ 300 more, for a total in excess of 1,500. This is a lovely little city in the north, with a population of 4,500. Mine workers pay taxes, and I am told they total $20 million annually, not counting the rights the company pays to the government.

Page 2 states that there are 600 mining companies in Canada, and they employ 368,000 Canadians. I would say that they also employ Quebeckers.

Under the agreements you want to have with the federal government, would operations be as usual? There was reference to Inco, which is to open a mine in Voisey's Bay, Labrador, and a foundry in Sept-Iles which would hire 1,200. Everyone is rejoicing because this will create employment, one direct job creates five others, and all these people pay taxes.

In the case of aboriginal operations, will this work in the same way? Will private enterprise exploit the natural resources for the benefit of the aboriginal workers? I am totally in agreement that aboriginal people receive training, and that there be employment in the area in which they live, which is where the mines will be operating, but will it be the aboriginal people themselves who will be involved in this operation? Will private enterprise be allowed to invest in and operate mines, or will it be the aboriginal people and the government who are going to invest?

If it is the aboriginal people, will there be a double standard, or the same rules for everybody? In other words, will they be treated like the mining companies in our area, for instance? They have to pay the government mineral rights. Will the workers be paying income tax?

I have always maintained that there was only one type of citizen in this country and that all must be equal, without discrimination. I do not place myself above others, and neither should the aboriginal people be placed above or below me. Everyone must be treated equally, everyone must pay taxes, and everyone is entitled to jobs and to training. I would like to know whether that is how this is going to work.

• 1620

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob: A large part of this is the responsibility of the provincial and federal governments, which negotiate master agreements with the aboriginal people with respect to income taxes, and their involvement in the tax system. The mining industry is governed by this framework.

We would prefer all people to be equal from the point of view of their contribution to the economy, but we know that, by virtue of various treaties and various rights, the economic and taxation situations of aboriginal people differ slightly from those of other Canadians.

When the companies negotiate agreements with aboriginal peoples, this is in part to counteract the advantage enjoyed by certain other citizens, who start off with better educations, more mobility and greater access to employment opportunities than certain aboriginal groups. The agreements focus on the needs of aboriginals in particular, but they do not necessarily deny other citizens access to employment.

I do not know if I have answered your question properly.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Yes. I took one thing from it, which is that the aboriginal people, under certain existing agreements, would have rights we do not have. Correct me if I am wrong, I am not sure I have understood correctly.

I agree that the agreements must be recognized. If the aboriginal people have rights, I am quite willing for them to have them, but I want you to understand that all Canadians and all Quebeckers have rights too. All citizens must benefit from the natural resources of a country, the aboriginal people included, especially in their own regions.

In my area, a mine is supposed to be opened at Natashquan. The company is having so much trouble reaching an agreement with the aboriginal people that I think it is going to drop the whole thing. This is regrettable.

I have done my level best. I have been meeting with the Montagnais community at Pointe-Parent, with whom you must be familiar. I have met with them twice and we are trying to reach agreement. There is, we are told, enormous wealth beneath us, but if nothing is done about it, no one will benefit from it.

There are 900 people in the community. I would like the 900 to have work. If those 900 work, everyone will benefit, and if those 900 are trained, then if the mine shuts down, they will be able to do something else, and their children will benefit. A person who is employed can take his place as a citizen of his country.

Once again, let me repeat that your presentation was very good. Returning to what you say on page 2, 600 companies employ 368,000 people. Those people pay an immense amount of income tax. I spoke of 1,200 people paying $20 million in taxes yearly. On the North Shore, in the four major companies, there must be in excess of half a billion dollars paid yearly.

I must tell you that the people of the North Shore are very happy. I assume that the aboriginal people would be equally happy in this situation. They would have good jobs, good schools, good training.

• 1625

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob: We agree that the natural resources sector, the mining industry in particular, can contribute to making aboriginal populations equal to others in Canada, but this is not an easy thing to do. There is a whole system of beliefs and fears that make it difficult.

We hope that, if the government launches an economic development initiative for aboriginal people, the educational aspect will play an important role. Even if they are told that this is an opportunity for economic growth, if they do not perceive it as such, we are wasting our time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Jacob, and thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Jacob, for your good presentation. My apologies for being a bit late.

[English]

A number of people have spoken about Delgamuukw, so I guess I'll just give a word about that before I ask my question, because quite frankly, I'm not as pessimistic as others are with respect to that decision. I find it a good decision, particularly for the aboriginal people.

I think it's the first time the aboriginal people have come out on top and have a stronger bargaining position in terms of seeking their rights and an equal opportunity to pursue their lives. Even though it does cause some confusion because of the uncertainty, the part that's often missed in that decision is that the chief judge urged very strongly that people not to go court to settle these issues, but that people sit down and negotiate—that the government negotiate with the aboriginal people. That's the message that has been there all along, although governments have been a bit hesitant to do it.

Now there's a stick hanging over government's head. The governments, if they are smart, will now come to the table in a meaningful way and negotiate with the aboriginal people around the sharing of resources and around making it possible for people to work together and move forward together. I don't think that's something people should be afraid of or see as threatening; it's a very positive step. Before, aboriginal people had nothing to force government to come to the table, and it was often very one-sided in terms of the negotiations with aboriginal people.

That aside, there is an issue that perhaps does tie in with the Delgamuukw decision, because when you look at mining, quite often, with minerals being vested in the Crown, mining companies will have to pay royalties to the Crown for the privilege of working with those minerals and profiting from them. If aboriginal people have title to certain lands and if they can substantiate that and it's proven, then I guess what one would be looking at is whether they are entitled to some royalties or meaningful benefits if mining activities take place in their territories.

Far too often what's happened with mining activities taking place in and around aboriginal communities is that what they've been left with has not been the richness of those mines or the riches from those mines, but rather the devastation, the environmental pollution, and all the things that follow from destroying an environment. We're dealing with a situation right now in the Northwest Territories, the uranium mining situation that's affected the Dene on Great Bear Lake. Now we have an opportunity whereby we can reverse that trend and make sure aboriginal people share in a more positive way from the results of mining.

So how would the Mining Association feel about, or has it given any thought to, the concept of aboriginal people not just sharing in jobs from mines, but sharing in a meaningful way in the royalties and the richness that comes from the mining activity? Is that something you've given consideration to?

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: Well, I know the Raglan agreement includes some royalty aspect to it; there's a sharing of royalties or some kind of royalty regime there. Again, it depends on the situation. It depends on the negotiations between the governments, the communities, and the mining companies.

It's very difficult, including on the Delgamuukw and the issue you've raised, to come up with a standard answer to this. One of the things that characterizes aboriginal issues in Canada is how diverse they are from one area to another. In terms of their rights to the land, the rights to surface or subsurface resources, and management responsibilities for the land, it is so diverse from one area to another that we have avoided trying to come up with some generalized approach to aboriginal relationships between the mining industry and aboriginal peoples.

• 1630

So I know that, depending on the situation— There is an example of negotiating a royalty regime with the Inuit in northern Quebec. I'm not familiar with other arrangements of that nature, but certainly all kinds of arrangements can exist, depending on the local situation.

Mr. Gordon Earle: The reason I raised that question is, we know that if there's going to be true economic development and true progress on the part of the people, they have to have some control themselves over the resources. This was very evident as we travelled northward and visited some aboriginal communities.

One village we visited, Oujé-Bougoumou, was a prime example of how a people could prosper and move forward if they managed their finances themselves. What they obtained in the way of a settlement they managed themselves, and it was a very positive experience. Whereas in other instances, where people are left to a situation where someone else manages for them, then far too often people fall short of what they would like to accomplish.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: Can I just say something here though? That's where government has an important role to play. I don't think a company can recognize ownership or control on the part of the aboriginal community on its own, and that's why the whole question of certainty is of so much concern to the industry. You enter into negotiations in good faith on the part of all the parties, but you have no certainty of title, of ownership, or of continued access. So the whole question of certainty is fundamental to economic development, especially with regard to natural resources.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, yes, I understand that, and I wasn't suggesting the companies would be the determining factor, but I was just wondering if companies had given any thought to arrangements other than what currently exists, in terms of how they would relate if a different situation were to develop.

I have just one final question. You mentioned some of the shortfalls, or opportunities and challenges, that are involved, including basic educational shortfalls and lack of industrial experience on the part of aboriginal peoples. What is being done through your association to deal with that kind of issue?

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: We have created a joint council called the Mining Industry Training and Adjustment Council. It is jointly managed by the unions involved in the mining industry and by management. They create workplace committees to look at training and also at adjustment, in case of closure or relocation of mines and all that.

The council is new; it's only been in place for a year. In their strategic plan there are provisions to look at aboriginal training and aboriginal education. I can't give you the details, because I'm not sure they've even been worked out, but certainly there's a recognition that education and training of aboriginal people deserve some special attention. I know the council has taken it upon itself to look at aboriginal training specifically.

The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Earle.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation today. I have some specific questions, but I also have a number of comments.

• 1635

In regard to the whole problem of trying to utilize the mining example as an opportunity for economic infrastructure, economic stability, and economic gains for aboriginal populations, I may have an opinion on it that is a little different from that of the other members of the committee. Too often, I think, we look to government for guidance here, and too often we don't get the guidance. It's quite simple.

I'm one member of this committee who is not afraid of mining companies or of what they do. I've seen examples of good mines and I've seen examples of bad mines. I hold a valid prospector's licence and plan to continue to hold it.

However, our governments and our regulatory systems that are in place quite often start off with one set of rules, and then, part-way through, the rules get changed, for whatever reason. Sometimes it's because a powerful mining company is able to influence people. Sometimes it's a community or a group of workers or a powerful union that is able to influence people.

I think there are just as many mistakes made amongst all parties. It seems to me that if we have one strict regulatory regime and a very clear, concise and accurate set of rules to work by—and if we apply them evenly—that'll take away some of the negative aspects of the mining business.

And specifically with respect to what happened in Radium Lake, I don't think that was any more specific to that community than any other community in Canada at the time. The government was aware of what was going on and refused to act. It's very true. It happened to be an aboriginal community and a lot of aboriginal workers were involved, but the same thing happened in the coal mines in Cape Breton and in other mines in Canada at that time. It was a worker safety thing.

You mentioned a number of other examples. I want to say that lessons were learned and that one of the most important ones is the use of a more—and I hate to use the word because it's certainly overused today—“holistic” approach to the whole process of mining, that it's more than just extracting ore out of the ground, that you also have to supply jobs.

And the other thing you mentioned that I think is important is the fact that mines close. Quite often when a mine is established, no bond is posted for a mine site clean-up when it's over. And personally, as far as I'm concerned, that's a failure of the regulatory regime.

Now, we may ask ourselves what type of clean-up we want. Are we going to have a shaft and a tailings pile? Are we going to put the tailings back in the ground? Is it an open pit mine? What's the process?

However, if we have a mining company that comes in and posts a bond—and that bond could be for tens of millions of dollars—stating that at the end of this process there's money available for a clean-up, and if we all of a sudden don't run into a fracture or a fault zone in the mine and run out of ore, which happens very often— Many mines are forecast as having a twenty-year history and end up having a two-year history. There are very difficult situations that both the mining companies and the communities that become dependent upon those mining companies run into.

I'd like a comment on this specific issue. I think I know the answer but I want to raise it for the committee. I won't take too much longer, Mr. Chair. I find myself in disagreement with many of our members, probably, on this specific issue, and with respect to Mr. Finlay, who was at the meeting of the environment the other day— I always appreciate his comments, I would like to say.

• 1640

With respect to Tuktut Nogait National Park— It's not a national park, actually, it's a protected area in the Inuvialuit region, where we have a circumstance where we have co-management of a protected area. It's not a national park yet. It will become a national park in the next couple of weeks. You have a protected area where you have a co-management agreement directly involving the four Inuit groups of the Inuvialuit region and the Government of the Northwest Territories, which is very representative of aboriginal peoples, who have come back to the government to renegotiate and actually take a piece of land out of that protected area—it's not a national park, it's a protected area—and have basically been refused.

And I think they will continue to be refused, given that it's not a known mineral deposit yet, that it was an anomaly, that it was found by airborne sources. They knew it was there before, but it still had to go through all of the environmental process and the test drilling. And the aboriginal people who live in that area wanted to pursue that mineral activity, which may or may not have come to fruition, which may or may not have actually led to a producing mine.

I think we apply two sets of rules. These people have already set aside 29.5% of their land base in northern Canada for national parks, and yet we apply the rule there that they can't take 2.5% of this potential national park out of the area. I think I know the mining industry's reply, but I wanted to get that on the table at this meeting anyway. I'd like to hear your answer. We talk about listening to the aboriginal peoples, but when they come to the table with something to say, we don't want to hear it.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: I don't know the details of the protected area you're specifically referring to, but I know that within the industry we're always concerned with the notion of protected areas, because access to land is such a fundamental requirement of the industry. Plus, there's the fact that when an area is designated a national park, the way the act now is constituted, it is designated forever and ever, and the boundaries are very difficult to move once they are set.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And they should be.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: Yes. On the other hand, we also believe that before putting boundaries around the area there should be a thorough assessment for mineral potential and an opportunity for people directly affected by the decision to at least comment on whether they still want that area to be part of the national park.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: To be fair, that took place, but new information led to new ideas.

What I'm talking about is something that I thought I heard you saying, and that was a co-management type of attitude towards development, where you actually listen to all the stakeholders. Specifically, the aboriginal communities may not be the landowner in a specific area, or in some instances they may be. If they are the landowner, they automatically come in for all the royalties and moneys that land ownership would bring, for surface rights at least, or for owning the surface to that mineral deposit, versus the government owning it.

But if we're going to have that approach, we have to apply it. And if the aboriginal groups are coming to us as government representatives, I think we have to listen to what they have to say. And I'm not sure that happens.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I have given you a good deal of leeway this afternoon. We had a long night of it yesterday, and all the MPs have been good about it.

I will also give you some leeway, Mr. Finlay. You may begin your questions.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say that I largely agree with Mr. Earle's characterization of the Delgamuukw decision, and I agree with a lot of what my friend Mr. Keddy has said. At one point he said that we often expect government to make all the decisions. Governments are not going to make all the decisions, and if they did they would be foolish, because they'd be wrong at least half the time.

An hon. member: Maybe more.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Finlay: Maybe more. I agree.

• 1645

But let's consider the aboriginal situation for a minute. My conclusion right now is that it means too that companies—mining companies, airline companies, any other company, I don't care, a company—and aboriginal communities need to work out agreements. The companies can come to the government and say “You decide” all they like; I'm going to be like the previous Minister of Indian Affairs, when the Inuit said “You decide where the capital is going to be”, and he said “I'm not going to do it, you are. You are the people living here”. I'm going to say the same to the companies: “You are the miners, you know about rock, you know where the weight's going to— you know these are problems. Now you deal with an educated community and come up with something”.

We have to get away from this notion of certainty, because it isn't going to work. Mr. Keddy's just been talking about boundaries of national parks. Yes, we like to protect them. Does that mean we're going to protect them if suddenly something important is found, or we need a site to defend ourselves? I don't know, there are all kinds of scenarios. Nothing's cast in stone except stone, and we change that too.

But we also have to recognize that when we make boundaries in parks, we do it to protect something. There are enough minerals in this country, surely to goodness, that we can stay away from the parks for awhile. Perhaps in a thousand years when we've exhausted everything else— but that's not what the miners tell me. They tell me we're only down about a mile. We have a hundred or more miles to go, and there's no limit to how far we can drill, as long as the drills don't wear out.

Let's look at the past. In the past, the aboriginal people had no power. We went to Oujé-Bougoumou. I think my colleagues will remember that the chief said they moved eight times in thirty years or something. They didn't move because they wanted to move, they moved because the mining company said “We're going to build a mine here”, and the government of the day said “Fine” and ignored the aboriginal people. So they moved. Well, those days are over, finished and done with. Delgamuukw, it would seem to me, has at least said that.

So we're not in the past. They had no power. They moved often, they were taken to residential schools, and their culture was not recognized, not paid any attention to. They are going to get paid attention to.

The mining companies could devastate an area and then pull up stakes when there was no more ore and go back south, or go somewhere else, or to Australia. But the inhabitants of the area who wanted to hunt their caribou or catch their fish suddenly found there weren't any fish, and the caribou had all gone, and so they had to move. Now that's going to cease, obviously. It doesn't work, it's not fair, and we don't condone it.

So companies are going to have to rethink. Now these inhabitants have rights. Mr. Keddy rightly asked what happens when the mine closes. The inhabitants are still there. Falconbridge can go somewhere else. Well, that has to change. Now they have some rights, so companies must rethink.

You made an excellent point. You said a generalized approach may not work, and I would agree with you, except for general principles. There must be employment for the local inhabitants. There must not be permanent damage to the ecosystem. There must be a resource— you used the word, I thought, Mr. Keddy. Anyway, there has to be a bond. You replace things. How much do you have to replace? Well, at least the water has to be clean and the trees have to be able to grow. Okay, maybe you have to shovel everything back down the mine. They're doing it in Sudbury. Sudbury used to be the place where they photographed pictures having to do with the moon, because it didn't have anything green growing there. That's not the way it is now, thanks to Inco and Falconbridge and some environmental approaches.

Now we have to look at the future. Like our own communities, I suggest the aboriginal people are doing that. That's why some of them don't want to clear-cut the forest even though it may bring good wages. They say no, they're not going to do that.

• 1650

They may not want to work in the mine for a week when it's goose season because they want to go hunting. We had some lovely goose because everybody went hunting to get the goose. If we insist that they be just like us and work eight hours a day, five days a week regardless, we're going to have trouble. They're going to go goose hunting. So we might be better advised to think about that before we make some silly rules with respect to attendance at the mine site. It's the same thing when it's moose season. Everyone has to benefit, not just the mining companies.

I don't want to say a word about certainty, because if we're going to get hung up on certainty, it'll be another 200 years before we get the aboriginal people of this country into a proper place within it.

They're not going to agree with everything we do, and to suggest there will be ownership and liability— We talk to the people up there. In Oujé-Bougoumou they're not interested in that; they're interested in the community's welfare, and if that's what the companies have to compensate, that's what they have to compensate. These people have just as much right to live as a community and not as dog-eat-dog if they want to do that. That's the way it has to work.

I must admit I have not read the research report from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Rethinking Aboriginal Participation in the Minerals Industry: An Exploration of Alternative Modes”. You have probably read that, so maybe you can help. You pick out that 30% of aboriginal communities are located within a 50-mile radius of a producing mine, so they must be more affected by mining than any other group in this country. I made a note that I want to read this report, but do you have a little more information on that?

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: No. I haven't read the entire report, I have to admit. I took some of the summary conclusions of the report. But it follows the pattern of most mining activity exploration and development occurring in remote and northern areas. That's where most of the population of aboriginal communities is also found. So there is definitely an impact, a coming together of the two. I believe the industry is trying to achieve that beneficial coming together of the two, both for the company and for aboriginal communities.

I agree there have been some bad practices in the past, but certainly today's companies no longer operate that way. I've mentioned some policies with regard to aboriginal communities, sustainable development, and environmental quality. I believe that is no longer how companies operate; that's not the standard practice. The agreements I mentioned earlier include opportunities for working schedules that accommodate hunting, fishing, and other aspects of the traditional lifestyle. So I believe the interface is a lot gentler and more productive than it's been in the past.

Because a lot of mining activity in Canada right now occurs near aboriginal communities, definitely the contact is evolving. It's not cast in stone, it's a new contact. It's a new way of doing business between companies and aboriginal communities.

There is a comment I'd like to make on some of the things you've said, but I don't think you've finished asking your questions.

Mr. John Finlay: Go ahead. My other question is from page three, where it surprises me, but we can find out.

On socio-economic agreements, you talk about impacts and benefits agreements—which is largely what we're talking about—sometimes negotiated directly between the company and local communities, and sometimes they involve governments. It's true, and I see nothing wrong with that. Then you say that companies often enter into these agreements voluntarily, which is sort of what you just said now. However, some jurisdictions require companies to negotiate. I want to know why other jurisdictions don't require companies to negotiate such agreements. I notice Ontario and Quebec and B.C. are not there, and even—well, Alberta is. Why is that?

• 1655

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: I'm not sure why different provinces have decided to put some legal requirements to the negotiations and others have not. I can only assume that those negotiations occur in any case, and that some provinces may feel there's no need for them to regulate the negotiation of those agreements. They will happen. They have to happen when the two come together.

Mr. John Finlay: Maybe it's because the attitude of some people in some provinces is that they haven't come as far as you in the Mining Association, and as this committee, and as some of us who know something about it have come. In other words, I think what B.C. would really like is for us to say that the Delgamuukw decision is mistaken, and that B.C. owns the land in B.C. Well, that isn't going to happen.

Mike Harris might like us to say exactly the same thing in Ontario. And certainly Hydro-Quebec would love it if we said the same thing in Quebec. We're not about to do that, either.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: I do believe that the mining industry and mining companies have come a long way—

Mr. John Finlay: Oh, I do too.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: —in their relationship with aboriginal communities, and I would not like you to interpret my concluding remarks as saying we can't do anything without government playing a big part in this.

The way I've tried to conclude is that we are having successes in dealing with aboriginal communities—successes that accrue to both aboriginal peoples and the mining industry. If the government is considering policies, programs, or special activities to promote even further economic development for aboriginal people, we believe that the mining industry can play a big role in that.

However, if the government is going to institute programs and policies, here are some of the areas where we believe you can play an important role. Education is one—capacity building—as is, for the industry, the whole question of certainty. Any investor will question whether or not to invest if they are not certain of being able to see that investment come to fruition, so the whole question of certainty is a serious one for the industry and for the economy in general. Investors are skittish, and they do need to know that their investment will not be removed for reasons that could have been controlled by governments.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mrs. Jacob.

Mining is always considered a man's field. Mrs. Jacob, being in the mines sector, have you ever worked in a mine?

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob: No. My background is not in mining, but more on the environmental side. My experience was mainly acquired on the environmental side: ecosystems, biodiversity, habitat protection, protected areas.

The Chairman: How did you get into mining?

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob: I have been in the mining sector for three or four years. I was in government, in the Department of the Environment, dealing with environmental protection issues. I got into mining by chance. Some of the issues I had been dealing with involved mining and I was offered the opportunity to work in the mining industry in order to gain a better understanding of the impact of government programs on the industry. It is a fascinating experience.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Jacob. I would have thought you had been in mining for 20 years. You have learned a lot in the past three or four years.

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob: Thank you.

The Chairman: Much obliged.

Mr. Konrad, you gave the committee a notice of motion.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes, I did.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You are going to get back to this later on?

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes, I will, because it's not on the agenda for today.

The Chairman: So it's just notice.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: There are not enough members here to vote, so it's really just a notice given to you that I'll be making that motion to call on the committee to study the Delgamuukw decision.

• 1700

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'd like to make a couple of comments about the idea that only aboriginals are affected by mining. If you come to Saskatchewan, you'll see potash mines that take up many square miles of the landscape; they're huge. I'd also like to say that the idea that only Indians like to hunt or fish, or like to take time off for that kind of thing, with all due respect, I find it racist. It's no more true than white men like to take the summer off to golf, or the winter to go to Hawaii; it's just racist. In my home town I've had people work for me and I had to plan my work around their hunting trips, and they weren't Indians, a lot of them.

Mr. John Finlay: That's good.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Furthermore, if government has a legitimate role, it is the creation of a regulatory environment in this country, and people need to know the rules. Because if they don't know the rules, things fall apart. So I dispute that as well.

Getting back to your comments, there is a hope that things will happen if people have an education; and if they have to live in some remote area, it needs to be a real hope. There's a proverb that says without hope or without vision the people perish; and that's what this committee is trying to do, to get people away from having a hopeless existence.

By that standard, the industry has to deal with something called aboriginal title. Like it or not, it's there. I would like to know if there is an agreed-upon working definition among at least the industry. Or are aboriginals and developers, and possibly even the government, working from different definitions, in your opinion? How long can we drag on before real investment leaves this country? Because you've said it's happening, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not. Where will the money go—elsewhere in Canada, or is it going offshore?

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: A few years ago I would have said it's going to Latin America, Africa, and some Russian republics. It is coming back to Canada. In the past four or five years exploration investment is definitely coming back to Canada. Canada has once again become an attractive place for exploration investment, mostly due to recent discoveries. These include diamonds in the north, and in Alberta right now there's a lot of exploration going on for diamonds again. There is the Voisey's Bay discovery—

The Chairman: James Bay.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: —and James Bay. There is a sense that, yes, there are some important discoveries left to be made in Canada, and some important deposits. But there is a concern with the regulatory framework with respect mostly to environmental duplication between the provinces and the federal government. There's a sense that it takes a long time to go through environmental processes because sometimes you have to do them through various levels of government. Aboriginal title now has brought in another question mark as to what this means. So it's only a question of having more question marks at the end of a decision that a company or an investor makes in terms of where he or she is going to put his money. They ask how all this is going to affect the investment they're making.

So that's basically it. Investment is coming back to Canada. It's not all doom and gloom. And that's why we say there is a lot of opportunity for aboriginal peoples here. You're talking about hope; we do believe that mining and mineral exploration is a wonderful opportunity for all of Canada's population, but specifically for the poorer ones.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Can we have a vote here in ten minutes?

The Chairman: We may have the vote tomorrow.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Go right ahead, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It is a comment on the diamond exploration. I think part of what fuelled a lot of that was a stable government in the Northwest Territories and the fact that a few of the land claims in the Northwest Territories have been settled but many more of them are very close to being settled. So there is some certainty, and I'll use that word again.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I do not have any questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

• 1705

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the witness for a very useful document. Obviously this is a vehicle of economic development that's going to loom large in the north and in the aboriginal communities.

I was going to say something—Mr. Konrad is on the phone now, so he'll miss the import of my comment. I was going to say that in the future it's going to be just like our own communities. I have a group in my riding that is very concerned about the oil pipelines and the changing of pipelines from oil to natural gas and so on. The pipeline companies have an agreement with the farmer, you know. They have a lease through here, and they have regulations with regard to how much soil they take out, and he mustn't plough too deep over it, and so on and so forth. They're worried now, you see, that the pipeline will sit there after the companies abandon it. Under a certain law in Ontario, farmers are apparently responsible for what's under the ground and they're going to have to pay for the environmental clean-up. So now there's a great concern over that, you see.

It's going to happen in the south just as it is in the north. It isn't going to be all peaches and cream. The company isn't going to be able to just walk away. But it presents government with another problem.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: I was just going to say something about reclamation, restoring the sites afterwards. Now companies are obliged to put up front the money required to bring the site back to a state that is equal to when it first started. So there is funding now that companies have to make available up front for bringing the sites back to a healthy status.

Mr. John Finlay: Well, I realize that. I presume with many mining companies it's a federal requirement, is it?

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, yes.

Mr. John Finlay: But you see, people have to do that in southern Ontario and other places with their gravel pits. They have to berm them and seed them and so on. That's why I was so interested in page 3, where you say that some jurisdictions require companies to negotiate certain agreements. I presume they have a series of headings that they have to cover in the agreement. But some don't.

Ms. Gisèle Jacob: Those that do usually follow some of the headings I've mentioned below.

Mr. John Finlay: Right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The other thing, John—if I can just interject for a second—is that obviously in the future the ways are going to have to change for mining companies. But to have a positive attitude for future development, we can do that without condoning the mistakes that have happened in the past. And that's what a lot of people remember.

I would argue the comment that Mr. Konrad made, and I think it has some validity. I would argue that there is a much higher percentage of non-aboriginal communities close to mine sites today than aboriginal communities, and I can show you some examples. There is a lot of mining activity—it may be small mining activity—going on throughout Canada that people are not aware of. There are several mines in Nova Scotia. I'm not picking on Gordon, but I don't know if he could name every mine in the province. I suspect he could, being the good, sharp politician that he is.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I know a few of them, but I probably don't know as many as the prospectors do.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But there are many small operations going on that are out there doing a good job, and people are not aware of them because they do a good job. The only hear of the mistakes and the problems. You know, do a good job and nobody listens, but make a mistake and everybody knows, right?

Mr. John Finlay: But just to follow up on that, Mr. Keddy, I think of Oxford County as a rural-urban agricultural riding, but we have the richest limestone quarries in Canada—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There you go. And that's a mine.

Mr. John Finlay: And that's a mine. They have their problems with a group in the riding who do not want them to expand this operation any more. The overburden is getting deeper, so we're losing agriculture land. So there's a tension there, and there's a trade-off there. It's the same everywhere else.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We have many mines in my riding, at Val-d'Or. My thanks to the MPs.

• 1710

Before closing , I would like to read the motion I have received from Mr. Konrad:

That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development study and report back to the House on the impact on British Columbia of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (December 11, 1997).

This is a notice of motion which I wanted to read to you for your information.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chair, I wonder if it's in order for me to suggest a friendly— I don't want to call it an amendment, but a little change in emphasis in the motion. This is the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for Canada, not British Columbia. So I'm wondering if the mover of the motion would—

I'll just throw this in and you can think about it, Mr. Chairman: that we study and report back to the House on the implications for aboriginal economic development and land claims both in B.C. and across Canada of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, because the decision is not restricted to B.C. It's going to affect, as it does Nova Scotia and New Brunswick right now— Therefore, I think we should broaden it a little bit.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Fax it to me, or e-mail it or something, so that I have it.

Mr. John Finlay: All right.

Mr. Gordon Earle: So this is just a notice of motion. We get to talk about the motion the next time, right?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Not for the last time, perhaps.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: And if you don't like it, we can change it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Not for the last time, perhaps, because the next time is tomorrow morning. We will be hearing witnesses tomorrow morning.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I will make a small comment right away.

[English]

Basically I'm opposed to this motion and I'll tell you why. I don't think the motion is a positive motion. It almost implies that there's something wrong with the Delgamuukw decision. I've already indicated I think it's a positive decision, but it depends upon how we move from there.

The other thing, this being the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, is that we don't mention anywhere specifically the impact with respect to aboriginals of that particular decision. We just talk about the impact on British Columbia and Canada, almost to imply that this decision is a negative thing for B.C. and for Canada.

Anyway, I just thought I'd put that on the record, but we will be taking a look at it later.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Perfect. We are done. Mrs. Jacob, thank you for coming before our committee. I think all of the hon. members have appreciated your presentation and your comments. Keep up the good work.

Mrs. Gisèle Jacob: Thank you, and good luck in your deliberations.

The Chairman: The committee is adjourned.