CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

• 1533

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Monsieurs et mesdames, ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum.

Pursuant to an order of reference of the House dated Friday, April 3, we are undertaking the study of Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act.

Appearing before us today is the Hon. Andy Mitchell, Secretary of State for Parks.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you want to get the proceedings under way.

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks)): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with the committee Bill C-38, an act to establish Tuktut Nogait National Park. The passage of this bill will mark a significant milestone as we work toward completing our national park system early in the next century.

The national park system is one of Canada's greatest treasures, cherished by all Canadians. As I travel throughout Canada in my portfolio, Canadians from all walks of life have made it clear that they set as a priority the protection of our special places. They look to us in government to ensure that public stewardship is exercised and that a portion of our national heritage will be protected—protected not just for today, not just for tomorrow, but far into the future for generations yet to come.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as individuals, as a government, and as Canadians, we have no right to use up our natural legacy in a way that leaves nothing for generations yet to come. All of us bear this responsibility, and it is one that I intend clearly to shoulder on behalf of the people of Canada.

• 1535

I was very pleased that Bill C-38 was supported by all parties at second reading. I know, through discussions with most of you around this table, that you share a commitment to Canada's special places, that you share a commitment to our national parks, which are second to none throughout the world.

We also know, however, that recently the establishment of this particular park has raised a certain amount of controversy. It is my intention today to deal with a number of issues that have been raised.

More specifically, I first intend to talk about the important ecological roles we hope to achieve through the establishment of Tuktut Nogait National Park.

Second, I want to take a little bit of time to talk about the process that has gone into the establishment of the park and the decisions that had been made in respect of it—a process, by the way, Mr. Chairman, that I believe to have been inclusive and transparent.

Third, I intend to talk about how we in Parks Canada and how the agreement that establishes a park will work toward the economic advantage of those who live in the region.

Finally, I want to spend a minute talking about the importance of protecting the integrity of our national parks.

Mr. Chairman, one of the key objectives of establishing Tuktut Nogait National Park is to provide protection to the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou herd. As most of you are aware, it is a long-standing policy of this government to protect caribou across the arctic and to take the steps necessary to achieve that objective. Some have suggested in making changes to the boundaries of the park that the area being requested to be excluded would not have an impact on those calving grounds.

Mr. Chairman, the science I have been provided with, in which I have been advised, indicates otherwise. In fact, in most of the years in which observations have been made, including 1975, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1983, and 1986, caribou were indeed observed in what would be the exclusion area that has been suggested.

Clearly, a policy that includes the protection of the Bluenose caribou needs to include the boundaries that were established in 1996 in order to be effective.

In addition, there are international considerations with respect to the protection of caribou. The Prime Minister has spoken clearly and consistently over the years to urge the Government of the United States to protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd in Alaska, which is in their jurisdiction, something that Canada has done by establishing new national parks in the Yukon.

I believe firmly, Mr. Chairman, that it is absolutely essential that we display consistency to the Americans if we are to have credibility in insisting that they protect caribou herds under their jurisdiction. I was recently in Washington, and I can assure you that governmental and environmental interests are watching the Canadian government's action on this issue very carefully.

We do not want to see natural resource extraction on the area that is commonly called the 1002 lands. One of the best tools we have to avoid this is to demonstrate our commitment and that our actions match our rhetoric on this issue.

In addition, the park will protect other wildlife: musk ox, grizzly bears, wolves, and the peregrine falcons. I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not indicate the natural beauty and natural landscapes that we are trying to protect through the establishment of this park in natural region 15. This includes tundra landscape and arctic rivers with deep gorges, including the spectacular La Roncière Falls.

I would now like to turn my attention to the process that has transpired in the establishment of this park. I want to assure you and all members of this committee that the process has been inclusive, exhaustive, and transparent. I want to assure you that all requests and all information have been considered, evaluated, and acted upon in what I believe to be the best overall interest of all parties concerned.

The idea of a national park in that area was raised by local people, by the Inuvialuit themselves. It was first mentioned in 1989 as part of the Paulatuk Community Conservation Plan. The community approached us in Parks Canada requesting that the Government of Canada proceed with protecting this area by way of a national park. From there followed several years of consultation and exhaustive studies. Significant public input was obtained, evaluated, and eventually put in the format of an agreement that all parties could adhere to.

• 1540

During that process, Mr. Chairman, it was recognized that a geological anomaly existed in the area, and that this anomaly indicated a medium to high level of mineral potential. This was known almost from the moment that this area was first being considered.

In 1994, as part of the park establishment process, Darnley Bay Resources Limited, the company that holds the mineral rights to that area, at the request of the Inuvialuit themselves, voluntarily withdrew their prospecting permits within the proposed park area. From the information that is on the record, they withdrew these interests not because they felt there was no opportunity to exploit the resource, but because they believed it was the right and responsible thing to do. In fact, the president of the day, Mr. La Prairie, stated in a letter, and I quote:

I strongly feel that this was the necessary step towards the preservation of such natural significant landscapes as Tuktut Nogait as well as the future of the Inuvialuit settlement.

He continued by saying:

I have grown to understand the importance of projects such as yours, which will hopefully bring full protection to the many important attributes unique to this part of Canada.

I believe Darnley Bay Resources Limited acted in good faith. They acted with the realization that there is a need to manage the development of our natural resources, and a need to do so in a way that protects our natural heritage.

In 1996, a six-party agreement was signed, establishing the park and setting out its boundaries. With the exception of formulization through the amendment to the National Parks Act, the job had been completed.

From that time onward, a park management board has been appointed and is operating to advise on park planning and operations—a management board, I might add, that includes Inuvialuit members from the local community.

In that agreement that was signed in 1996, a clause was included that allowed for the review of the agreement. The clause, however, does not state that such a review could be initiated by a single party, but that a review must be unanimously agreed to by all parties.

It has also been suggested that such a clause was specifically put there at the request of the Inuvialuit because of concerns in respect of mineral exploration on the western boundary. I have been advised that those negotiators who were at the table at that time do not have that interpretation of what took place. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that that clause is now a standard clause incorporated in all modern park agreements.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you and the committee are aware of the request to review the boundaries based on the potential of mineral exploration, and that such a request was coming now because there had been new information regarding the potential within the park.

Let me be clear. The potential of mineral exploration in that area has always been high. Although there is a suggestion that such mineral reserves may be closer to the surface than first thought, this continues to be speculative and can perhaps only be confirmed with additional exploration, which may or may not prove out.

I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, which in 1997 provided Darnley Bay with permission to conduct aerial research in the area. I quote a letter from DIAND in respect of that particular permission, which said:

Darnley Bay should be aware that no boundary change to the designated national park is foreseen. As such, any exploration activity undertaken within the designated park boundary by Darnley Bay or any other company should be for the purpose of gathering scientific data to aid in regional geological interpretation and not for the investigation of mineral potential within the designated park.

Mr. Chairman, we have not acted precipitously or in haste with regard to the request we have received. I have personally met with Nellie Cournoyea, chair of the Inuvialuit Corporation, and I have personally met with Stephen Kakfwi, minister for the Government of the Northwest Territories with responsibility in this area. I have met with my officials and others, and we have arrived at a decision to maintain the boundaries as agreed to in the 1996 agreement, largely because we do not believe there has been a significant change in circumstances and because we strongly believe in the importance of protecting the integrity of our national parks.

• 1545

I would like to turn for a moment to the issue of economic development. I want to make it clear that it is a priority not only of Parks Canada but of the Government of Canada to provide opportunities for economic development for all Canadians, including those in the north, particularly aboriginal people such as the residents of Paulatuk.

Any suggestion that we do not want to assist the Inuvialuit with economic development is simply inconsistent with the facts.

First it should be noted that 80%—a full 80%—of the mineralized anomaly is outside the park boundaries and is available for exploration. In fact Darnley Bay continues to raise capital for their projects in this area and is active in exploration and development outside the park boundaries.

The park's existence will provide long-term jobs, both permanent and seasonal. It will not be a panacea—it will not solve all the economic problems—but it will be a step in that direction. In this fiscal year Parks Canada will spend approximately $250,000 in staffing, $260,000 on the purchases of goods and services in the area, and $400,000 on capital. In fact over the next 10 years we expect to spend upwards of $10 million in the area.

As part of our obligations in that area, the park's management board is working with the Government of the Northwest Territories and Parks Canada to prepare a community development plan for Paulatuk. Recently we have undertaken a number of specific steps, including the signing of a memorandum of understanding on May 1 of this year that commits Parks Canada to contract with Inuvialuit-owned businesses for the construction of the Tuktut Nogait National Park office and the chief park warden residence in Paulatuk. That's a $220,000 project and clearly demonstrates our commitment. And Parks Canada will present a career fair in Paulatuk this month, in support of our second year of recruitment, in order to ensure we can recruit people from the local areas to work in our parks.

Finally, I would like to talk about the issue of protecting the integrity of our national parks. It has been suggested to me that inasmuch as formal legislation establishing the boundaries of the park had not yet been passed, there was no risk in entertaining such a proposal. Let me make it clear that there is indeed such a risk. Not only do we have this type of protection for Tuktut Nogait, but we have many other national parks under the same type of protection, which would be placed at risk by any decision to amend the boundaries.

We have the issue of logging in Pacific Rim and Gros Morne National Parks. We have the pressures from mining and logging in Pukaskwa. We have mining, gas, and oil exploration possibilities in the Grasslands. We have mining in the Aulavik Park and sport hunting in the Bruce Peninsula.

Let me make it clear that it is absolutely essential that we protect the integrity of our national parks. We understand clearly that we make a decision as a society to protect our natural spaces, not because we don't believe they're not good for anything else and not because we don't believe there are sacrifices involved; we do so because we believe as Canadians that it is important to protect these places for future generations of Canadians. That's why we foresee, that's why we create national parks, and that's why we have this legislation before the House today. I request that the committee report back positively to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm available to answer questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Minister. Will we be hearing as well from Mr. Amos?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Well, you might be with the questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fair enough. We'll proceed therefore to questions.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have three questions about this. The first one strays slightly but is relevant. I would like the minister to comment on the story that appeared in the Globe and Mail today concerning the development at Lake Louise. The article quotes from confidential Parks Canada memos that indicate that Parks Canada employees are to tell the public no decision has been made about development at Lake Louise even though a decision has been taken.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm sorry, Mr. Pankiw. We're dealing with Bill C-38.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes, well, I'm going to make the relevance clear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'll give you some leeway then.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you.

• 1550

The article cites another memo that says public reviews should be undertaken after the plans have already been finalized.

My question is this: is this an accurate reflection of how Parks Canada is being run? Are staff told to mislead the public, and are public reviews simply smoke and mirrors?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I think I'll let the minister answer that.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Well, absolutely not, Mr. Pankiw.

First of all, in relation to what the overnight accommodation would be in Lake Louise, that was established at 3,500 units. That was established in the Banff National Park plan that was made public some two years ago.

In addition to that, just two weeks ago, on May 15, my department issued a press release in which we clearly disclosed all of the development proposals. This was not only with respect to the chateau at Lake Louise, as we felt it was important for us to provide the principles upon which any development would occur in Lake Louise. We made those public as well.

That happened after a process of public consultation and public input, and that will follow up with an additional round of public input now that those principles have been established. We have proceeded in that area, as we do in all areas, Mr. Pankiw, in a very transparent and open manner.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Perhaps you'd be willing to table those memos?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Unfortunately, I think you'll have to ask the press. It is the press who are apparently in possession of those memos, and they have not shared them with me.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is this your third question, Mr. Pankiw?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, it's second question.

The Tuktut Nogait National Park was an initiative of the Inuit to protect the core calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou. But now there's a memo or brief dated March 11, 1998 in which they state that the mineral exploration area is not an area of the core calving grounds.

In your comments you said today that the caribou were sighted in the area. My question is, what evidence do you have as to the degree that this really is a core calving ground, and how do you interpret the change in position of the Inuvialuit? It's gone from being a core calving ground area to no big deal, so that can be carved out.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'm not in a position to speculate on why somebody else may or may not take a particular position at this time. The information that I have been provided clearly indicates that the area in question is part of the core calving grounds of those caribou.

There have been, as I indicated in my comments, actual observations of them in that area in the past, so we envision and see that as part of the core calving grounds. I can't speak to why somebody else may take a particular position.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay, here's my third question. Considering that every other signatory to the initial agreement has indicated a willingness to reopen and change those boundaries, why is the federal government not willing to look at that?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: First of all, let me point out that the agreement calls for not one, not two, not three to agree, but unanimity among all parties on that. To date, we have received a request from four other parties.

I indicated in my speech that part of the obligation of Parks Canada is to take a national perspective on these issues. That doesn't mean that other people don't take different perspectives on it, but ours is a national perspective.

I believe it's important to protect the integrity of our national parks. I believe that the objectives and goals that we had set out when we entered into that agreement in 1996 are still valid today.

As for the conditions and terms of the mineral anomaly, there's the fact that there was a high potential. That's not recent information; that's something that had been known all along. The company involved voluntarily withdrew from that area for what I believe were very responsible and principled reasons.

I think it's important for us to proceed. We've worked in other components of what I've done in this government. It's important that when we look at the north and we deal with the arctic that we understand that there are areas to be protected. I was pleased to see Darnley Bay in 1994 act in a way that I believe was responsible in recognizing that there are certain areas that we will choose for protection reasons to place off-limits.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1555

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister is at a committee meeting, the rules that apply are that members can ask virtually any questions they want of the minister.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Those are not my rules. If that's the will of the committee—I suspect it isn't—we can find out.

We have a reference here from the House of Commons to deal with Bill C-38. That's what we're dealing with. By and large, allowing for some flexibility with related issues and so forth, fine, but we're to stick to that.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I welcome you to the committee, and I appreciate what you had to say regarding the establishment of the new park. But what I came for I guess specifically was whether the amendment to Bill C-29—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On a point of order, would you care to ask questions on Bill C-38?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Well, I was getting around to it, if you would give the time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We're on Bill C-38, sir.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Okay. Will that amendment apply to the establishment of this new park?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: The Official Languages Act applies to Parks Canada, and this park is part of Parks Canada.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: What about the amendment?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: The amendment deals with a different piece of legislation from Bill C-29. The committee passed an amendment. I believe that bill is about to be referred back to the House within a very short period of time. It will go through the report stage process at third reading. At that time, we will see what the will of the House will be.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Can I ask then, given what the justice minister has said about the amendment, what your view is on this amendment?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Minister, with all fairness to you, sir, this has been dealt with by the committee. It has been reported to the House. Now it's up to the House to dispose of the committee's report. You need not answer that question if you do not wish to do so.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: But if I can interrupt, it's also the duty of the minister to answer any questions that members ask if he's here reporting to the committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If you wish to challenge the chair's ruling on that, sir, you're quite welcome to do so.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I don't know why I would have to.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Because I've ruled that this question is out of order, simply put.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Okay, but he hasn't responded yet as to whether or not he's going to reply or not.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's out of order. The committee has reported to the House, and it's up to the House to dispose of it. It's out of order.

Are you challenging the chair's ruling on that?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I wouldn't bother.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Well, why would I? You'll rule me out of order.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here this afternoon. We are used to operate with a bit more flexibility.

I believe it would be important for the Reform Party to send the same members to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage or that the substitutes be properly briefed by their colleagues. The member should have known that the report is before the House and that there is nothing else we can do about it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please, Ms. Tremblay, stick to Bill C-38.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Minister, you raised the issue of the boundaries of the park.

You may be here but do your work properly.

You talked about the boundaries and you said that there is a 1996 agreement that you do not want to change. Has en environmental impact study been carried out about the mine proposals?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: My understanding would be that there would not be an environmental assessment done within the park because, by definition, being within the park would exclude such a project from taking place.

This is my understanding. I'm not an expert on environmental assessments, but there is required to be a specific proposal for a specific project made before an environment assessment would commence, and that situation or set of circumstances does not exist here.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If I understand, there are five partners: the Department and four local groups. According to the agreement, they will appoint two members of the board, and you will appoint the other three.

• 1600

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Are you talking about the management committee that manages the parks?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, that will be two out of five.

[English]

Two out of five.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Two each and then jointly name a fifth who is the chair.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Is the partnership agreement that you have established for this park a new thing or does it exist anywhere else?

[English]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I think it reflects the way we are proceeding in Parks Canada at this time in the sense that we believe it's important in the establishment of our parks to work with our partners. That is what took place when we worked toward the establishment of the 1996 agreement. We worked with a number of partners toward the establishment of that park.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There is some concern within UNESCO about what is happening around Jasper. If I understand correctly, you said that 80 p. 100 of the mining area is outside the park. If the owners of that mineral resource were to decide to open a mine, would the area located outside the park have a negative impact on the environment of the park?

[English]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: If there were to be a specific proposal to open a specific mine, it would be subject to an environmental assessment. Through that environmental assessment process, they would have to consider the impact it would have on all the surrounding environment, not just the park but also any watersheds that may exist outside the park, etc. It would be subject to an environmental assessment.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If there is any time left, Mr. Chairman, I would have other questions.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm going to ask a question that's right here in the brochure.

I am interested in knowing whether you think any information or circumstances around the substantial agreement of the park have changed with regard to mineral potential since the agreement was struck. We are hearing that there are certain people who want to see certain areas pulled out, and I want your understanding of that. What's it all about? What change has occurred?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: From my understanding, from almost the beginning of the discussion on this park, there has been an indication of a high potential for minerals there. There's what they call an anomaly, and I'm not a geologist so I'm not particularly conversant with it. It would indicate there was mineral possibility.

That essentially hasn't changed over the seven- or eight-year period. It's always been high. The major change in that process was in 1994, when the company voluntarily withdrew its rights to that area.

In 1997 they did some aerial surveys that indicated, from what I understand, depending on how you interpret them, that the mineral might be even closer to the surface than perhaps was thought. That might make something more attractive for an investment.

Essentially the basic facts are there. We have an area we have designated for protection, and we did that with full knowledge that it was an area high in mineral potential.

I go back to my closing comments. We don't simply go out and protect something because it's of no use to anybody else. We protect things proactively because we believe it's important to do so. There's a certain cost for doing so. As Canadians, we bear the cost of protecting our special places.

• 1605

Ms. Wendy Lill: It's recognized that there are char habitats in sections of the Hornaday River, and I'm concerned about what ecological impact or cumulative ecological impact there could be on the rest of the Hornaday system.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: You mean if a mine were put in there?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Those types of impacts, as I mentioned earlier, would have to be addressed and discussed in an environmental assessment that would be required if there were ever a specific mining proposal for an area outside the park. Inside the park, that's not an issue because we would not entertain the establishment of a mine within the park.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Chairman, I'm replacing Mark Muise here today. I'll just explain for everyone else.

The Chairman: Welcome.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mark is away.

It's with some concern that I came to the meeting because we've been following the whole set-up of the park very closely. We have corresponded, as I'm sure everyone else in the committee has, with Nelly Cournoyea and have received a fair amount of information about the park. I guess there are a couple of questions I need to resolve as an MP, as a parliamentarian, and as a Canadian. First of all, it's not a park yet.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's not what?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: It's subject to a parks agreement but it has not been enshrined yet.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's not a park yet; it's a protected space. Protected spaces are open for negotiation and discussion because of the agreement that was written and signed with the Inuvialuit of the area. You can correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but under section 22.1, which is the review clause, it allows any party to the agreement to request a review of any or all of the terms of the agreement.

Mark and I have discussed this at some length, and as someone who's concerned about the north and the well-being of the Inuit of the north and all of the native peoples in Canada, we have an agreement here that they have said they want to renegotiate. They want to take another look at it and discuss it.

Five of the six signatories have asked for a rediscussion of the terms. They're saying a proposed mine operation is not a threat to the Bluenose caribou herd, in their opinion. A lot of variables here seem to be coming up. I don't want to have to go into the House and vote against this bill, but I can certainly see that unless there's more discussion on it, that could happen.

We're talking about setting aside a piece of our heritage, but it is not a national park yet, plus we have done things in national parks. We say they're untouchable, but we touch them when we want to. If we have bovine tuberculosis in the Wood Buffalo National Park, we take the wood bison with that out of there. If we had a predator loose in one of our parks, we would eliminate it if we thought that predator was going to be a problem and wasn't native to the area.

So nothing is written in stone. It may be a viable mine operation or not. We may have a commercial anomaly here that will end up in a mine or it may not. But we have a group of Inuit who have asked that 100,000 acres—2.5% of the space—be made available, which in the future could become park, if the space were left out now. Once it's passed we can't take it out. Then it's inviolate. But right now I think there's some room for discussion here, and I'd like to hear the minister's comments.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There are a few comments I'd like to give. First of all, your reading of section 22 is not complete. I'll read section 22.1 to you. It says:

Any party may request a review by the parties of part or all of this agreement.

You stated that quite accurately. But it goes on to say:

If all of the parties agree, they shall initiate the review within ninety (90) days of the request.

So two things have to happen. One of the parties has to request it, but for it to take place, all parties have to agree to it. Quite clearly we are acting in accordance with section 22.1 and there's been a tendency to quote the first sentence of that section and not the second sentence. I think we should put it clearly on the record that the agreement states unequivocally that for a review to proceed it needs the agreement of all parties to the agreement. I think that's important to—

• 1610

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And this is the co-management process. This is the process that was set down to be a co-management park between the Inuvialuit—

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I provided you with the courtesy of letting you finish your question, and I would appreciate the same from you, letting me finish my answer.

On the issue of saying it's not yet a national park, and therefore you do not have an obligation to provide a certain level of protection to it, well, using that approach, what you're indeed saying then is that we should allow development in Pacific Rim National Park, because it too is not yet under the National Parks Act, or that we should allow logging to take place in Gros Morne, or that we should allow mining and logging to take place in Pukaskwa or that we should allow for oil exploration in the grasslands. The list goes on. We have a number of parks that are in exactly this situation. They've been established by agreement but they have not yet been incorporated into legislation.

So I don't disagree with you when you say it's not yet officially a national park, but I would disagree with you when you suggest that there isn't an obligation, once a park agreement is signed, to provide protection.

The last comment I would like to make—and you made reference to this—is that we do intervene in parks, you're right. If there is disease, we may intervene. If there's a predator problem, we may intervene. But I believe there's a significant difference between doing that and allowing for a mine to be put in a national park.

Finally, I would say that part of the agreement there is that when the park is in place and running, it will be co-managed, and it's our intention to do that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Keddy. If we have time for a second round we'll get back to you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Fine.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Finlay.

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

Having just been away for a week with my colleague, Mr. Keddy, and agreeing practically all week—

Some hon members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Finlay: —I want to let him know, and the minister, and you, Mr. Chairman, that I don't agree with him on this situation.

I think it's unfortunate that the anomaly has 20% of it inside the park and 80% outside, because if I understand, Mr. Minister, what you're saying, if someone decided that we're going to put a mine on the 80% outside the park, we'd probably have to have an environmental assessment done anyway, because some of the spillover might go right down the river, as my colleague, Mrs. Lill, says.

I want to tell you, I'm very glad to hear you say—and I think you've emphasized it—that if this becomes a national park, to protect the biologically significant and unique area from a number of points of view, not only the ecosystem but the preservation of the caribou herd, mining and forestry and so on in national parks are out.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: That's correct.

Mr. John Finlay: Good.

Two, is there any buffer zone around this 16,000 square kilometres? It sounds like a lot of area, but as I read it, it's translated into 6,310 square miles, which is an area of 60 by 100 miles. It's not a huge area in arctic terms, or in Northwest Territories terms. It might be in the city of Toronto, but it isn't up there.

Mr. Keddy and I flew over 1.9 million square kilometres of ice, lakes, trees, tundra, and snow in four hours this last week, so there's lots of it up there. The Inuvialuit know it as well as anyone else. So I want to know whether there's any buffer zone.

The third question I want to ask is that in your press release, sir, it says:

Future agreements could be negotiated for the expansion of the park, including lands within Nunavut and the traditional territory of the Sahtu Dene and Metis, for a total of 28,190 square kilometres.

By my rough calculations, that is about 10,000-plus square miles, which might be a little healthier amount of land for the Bluenose caribou. I don't know. Why is that extension of the park being considered? Is it because we're not quite sure whether we have enough land put aside for the Bluenose caribou?

• 1615

Mr. Andy Mitchell: It's our long-term intention to include those areas. To do so requires working with different local partners in those cases, and our development has not proceeded to a point where we're in a position to sign an agreement with them. We will be pursuing that as we move forward into the future.

Mr. John Finlay: What about buffer zones? Have you any comment?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: The issue of buffer zones, I think, is one that we in Parks Canada and this committee and the House itself needs to discuss in terms of the overall issue of parks. They don't exist today, and I know that's something many groups have brought to my attention. I know some members have spoken to that, and I think it's worth examining for the future in terms of how we want to deal with the area immediately outside a park.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I want to clarify something. It actually picks up on a point Ms. Lill and my honourable colleague were making concerning the prospects of a mine on the border or boundary of the park. You talked about an environmental assessment process that would kick in.

Is this something over and above Environment Canada's process? Does Parks Canada have mechanisms that deal with the cumulative effects of this? I'm also on the environment committee, and I would not be too confident if you're telling me that you're talking simply about Environment Canada's assessment process there.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There is a separate process that takes place because of the land claim there.

Perhaps, Mr. Amos, you could address that.

Mr. Bruce Amos (Acting Director, National Parks, Department of Canadian Heritage): Any mine outside the park would be subject to the environmental assessment process, which is part of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and is specific to this area.

I would expect that, as Parks Canada has done in other circumstances where there is resource development immediately adjacent to the boundaries, we would be asked to give views on the possible impact of such a project on the park. In fact, the park's management board, to which Madame Tremblay referred, specifically has in its purview the possibility of making such comments on adjacent developments.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That language still worries me. Is it documented anywhere what would happen “if”?

Mr. Bruce Amos: Yes. The specific process is documented in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If they're asked, yes, but there's no guarantee that they will be asked. You referred to the possibility that they might be.

Mr. Bruce Amos: The possibility I was referring to was the possibility that a proponent might propose a specific project. If there was a specific project—

Mr. Joe Jordan: That process would kick in.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's a more enriched process than if Environment Canada were doing it by itself.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Well, not necessarily.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Perhaps I'm asking for an editorial comment.

Mr. Bruce Amos: I wouldn't compare it with Environment Canada's process, but it follows similar principles. It is a process specifically set out in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and gives Inuvialuit bodies a special role in the environmental assessment process.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, thanks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): A very short question. At a time when materialism is king, I hear that a private corporation has relinquished mining rights in a very responsible manner. Did the company do that strictly for reasons of generosity or civic responsibility, or for other considerations? What is the situation? I am very pleased but also very surprised.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: They did so at the request of the Inuvialuit, who asked them to withdraw because they were in favour of seeing the park established in that area. As I said earlier, I believe their decision to honour that request and do so was a responsible decision on the part of the company.

I would suspect, from comments made by the president, that they believed it was important to protect our special places. I was pleased to see that kind of decision made by a private sector company. I think it was a very responsible decision and something that can be a model for development in the arctic.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There is no trade-off? There are no further exchanges envisaged?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Nothing I'm aware of.

• 1620

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Pankiw, second round.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, suppose the park goes ahead as laid out with the current boundaries that are proposed and that somewhere down the line in the future it could conceivably be required, or parliamentarians somewhere in the future want to tap into that area. I'm wondering if it has ever happened in the past. Has a national park ever removed a portion of a boundary from itself?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Parliament has now and will foreseeably in the future, as it has in the past, have the ability to make the decision to exclude an area from a national park if it wishes to do so.

By having it reserved and being the preserve of Parliament, it ensures that there would be a national debate, a national discussion, about any such decision. I think this would be the appropriate way to do it. Personally, I believe that decision belongs with Parliament in a public way.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Has it ever happened?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There have been instances, and I could provide you with a list of those if you wish.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I would. Thank you.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Anything else Mr. Pankiw?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: That's it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure that I have understood the situation. Originally, the area relinquished by the generous company, which we can see on this map, was not within the boundaries of the park since it belonged to that mining company. Is that the case?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Some time before the park agreement was established they received mining rights in that area. They then, at the request of the Inuvialuit, relinquished that portion of their claim that was going to fall within the boundaries of the proposed park. In fact, that's what they did. Is that accurate?

Mr. Bruce Amos: May I add?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Sure, go ahead.

Mr. Bruce Amos: The proposed park boundaries had been set out and were known publicly among all the parties. At the same time, the area of mineral potential was known and had been known for some time.

In 1994, I believe, the company applied to the federal government through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for prospecting permits that included an area outside the park and a part of an area inside the park. It included the area that was requested for withdrawal but is larger than that. So the boundaries were known. The company asked for a prospecting permit. The boundaries were not in law. The area had not been withdrawn under the Territorial Lands Act and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development actually granted the prospecting permits at the time and included part of the area within the park.

Shortly after that, the Inuvialuit wrote to three federal ministers, at Environment, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Canadian Heritage, and requested that those prospecting permits be withdrawn within the proposed park area. So the boundary was already known but the prospecting permits had been granted covering part of that.

They asked the ministers to remove those and they asked the company if it would voluntarily relinquish that part of their prospecting permit that had been granted by the Government of Canada but was within the area proposed for the park. The company agreed and voluntarily relinquished that part of their prospecting permit that was within the proposed park boundary.

• 1625

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: All right. Now, they want this area to be withdrawn from the park. That is their request. Do you know if, between 1984, when the prospection rights were granted, and today any prospection was carried out on the area? Has there been any prospection here? Would they by any chance have become aware that this is a very rich area?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Yes, that occurred in 1997, but not on the ground. It occurred, as I mentioned earlier, with an airborne survey where they get magnetic readings of what may be under the ground. That took place in 1997. But the anomaly itself, which has been known for quite some time and was made public by the Geological Survey of Canada, clearly indicated years before that this was a high potential area. Some of the aerial work they did in 1997 confirmed what the geological survey had indicated existed, and that was a high potential for minerals in the area.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: When you said...

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You had a question, Ms. Tremblay?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's always the same. I'm trying to understand.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All right, but there is a time limit.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If we go too fast, we will not understand. We're not as quick as you, Mr. Chairman.

When you were discussing the agreement, before it being signed in 1996, did they have any doubts? Have they ever mentioned that they could reverse their decision or that they would want to get back to this area? Was the mineral potential taken into account when you discussed the agreement in 1996? Was it ever raised?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I can only speak from the information I'm given, because I was not responsible for the department at that time and was not present at the negotiations. From what I've been advised by my officials, no, that was not expressed at that time.

As I pointed out to you in my opening comments, the phraseology that was used regarding 22.1 is something that hasn't just appeared in this particular agreement. It has appeared in other agreements where mining isn't an issue. Thus, it wouldn't seem that the mining issues led to 22.1 being in the agreement, because it exists in other agreements where mining is not an issue.

Mr. Amos, were you actually part of those negotiations?

Mr. Bruce Amos: I was involved indirectly and staff who report to me were directly involved. Since this question has arisen, I've personally communicated with those members of Parks Canada staff who were directly involved in the negotiations. We don't share the interpretation that this was a concern. If it was a concern, it was at the time of signing the agreement in 1996. This was not raised with negotiators on behalf of Canada.

Our understanding is that the position of the Inuvialuit, at the time of the signing of the agreement in 1996, was entirely consistent with the position they took in 1994 when they specifically encouraged the governments and the company to remove the prospecting permits from that part of the park to ensure that that particular part of the park would be included in the agreement and would be protected for all time under the National Parks Act.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have to admit I find this really disturbing, because we're sitting here and there is this piece of land up there, and all sorts of different interests at work up there, obviously, and we're trying to figure out how this thing has fallen apart on us.

First of all, somebody mentioned that five out of the six signatories want to have the agreement renegotiated. Is that correct at this point? Are we now saying five out of six want to have it renegotiated, or is it simply the one?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: All of the Inuvialuit groups, because there's more than one Inuvialuit group, have made a request. The government in the Northwest Territories has not made a formal request, but they've indicated they support the request of the community. That's the technicality as such.

All of the people who are signatories to that agreement represent certain constituencies: the government in the Northwest Territories, the hunters and trappers, the development corporation, and the Government of Canada. I think one of the reasons why 22.1 in the agreement was drafted the way it was, was to make sure that all of the groups and their constituencies felt it appropriate to revisit the agreement. It was structured with an understanding that the different groups had different constituencies and therefore took different perspectives. That's why the issue of unanimity arose.

• 1630

That's in essence where we're at on this. The decision by the Government of Canada to proceed with the establishment and enter into the park agreement is based on addressing what we believe is in the best interests of the constituencies we represent and a belief that the circumstances that led to the agreement of 1996 are essentially the same circumstances that exist today.

We should make it clear that this isn't a situation where nobody was aware there was a mineral potential and they signed it blindly, not knowing, and then all of a sudden they found out there was a potential there. That's not the case.

This is a case where the mineral potential was known to be high and where the Inuvialuit themselves asked that the company relinquish those mineral potentials for the specific reason of being within the park. That's what led to the 1996 agreement and that's how we believe the park should be finalized.

Ms. Wendy Lill: If we were all up there and we could see what was happening, would we find out that certain interests now see it differently and therefore want to alter those boundaries? Are there now mining interests that no longer want to allow that property to be within the park, and are they working on the various interest groups involved in this? Are they now working on it?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: No, it is the same company that has been there all along. That has not changed. I cannot speak for others as to why they would change their opinion.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect, Mr. Minister, to your comment that it affects every other park in Canada, I'm going to go back to the same thing we said earlier: this is not a park yet. This is a protected area.

Now that I've got that off my chest, we can move on to the important items.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I wasn't trying to suggest it was other parks. Those parks I enunciated are other parks—what you know commonly as parks—that are in the same condition as Tuktut Nogait. They have not been formalized. I suggested not that all national parks would be put at risk by that decision, but that it would set a precedent for the ones I enunciated, which are basically under interim protection.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What I worry about, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we tend to force our culture on the culture of the north and on the lifestyles of the north. We have an agreement that is supposed to involve cooperation and coexistence and sharing of resources with the Inuvialuit Nation, and we seem to be ignoring the terms of that agreement.

There's room here to do both. There's room to have a park. I'm concerned about discussions about the buffer zone. Why should the buffer zone in the north be easier or be more stringent? I understand we have a terrifically fragile environment up there, but at the same time, are we imposing our will?

I want to read a comment Nellie Cournoyea made:

Signed commitments to Aboriginal people pale next to threats from southern environmentalists.

I'm not sure we don't have a little bit of that going on.

I take exception to your comment, Mr. Minister, that they knew prior to 1994 that they had a mineral anomaly there. They knew they had an anomaly outside the park. The information I have states that when the Inuit signed that away, they didn't think it was worth anything, and the mining company didn't think so either, or they would never have signed it away. Since then, with new science and different methods, they've found that perhaps—and we still don't know this, but perhaps—there's something there.

So there's the concern, and that's a different statement from saying it was known in 1994 that there was a mineral potential there of mine quality.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I stand by my comments. The anomaly was known. It was known as an area of high mineral potential.

But I'm a little bit surprised, if I heard you correctly—and correct me if I'm wrong—that you suggested everybody agreed to make this a national park because they didn't think there was any use for the land, that this was just leftover stuff: it isn't good for anything else, so let's establish a park.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll correct you, because you're wrong.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Okay.

• 1635

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What I'm saying is that I think we have to be careful.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Keddy—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I asked the member to clarify that, and that's fair enough.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Keddy, let's not interrupt.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): The minister asked him to respond.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Anyway, I'll just go quickly and let someone else speak, because I know everybody's interested in this.

I don't want to think that we're imposing.... Somehow, most people who go north—John and I were up north the other week—go with a southern lifeline attached to them. We make decisions all the time about people who live in a very harsh environment and a very tough climate. It's a very difficult place in the world to survive.

These people are coming back to say that they want to look at this agreement again. I think there's room there to look at it. We may come up with the same decisions. That may not change. But that's the message I'm getting. I just would like to think that the rest of the committee would at least look at that.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, if I could—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: —I have here a copy of file 2789 of the Geological Survey of Canada, which of course I'll leave with the committee, dated 1994. It clearly states that:

A moderate to high reading is assigned to the Darnley Bay gravity and magnetic anomaly, which underlies an irregular area around Paulatuk and the lower Hornaday River. High readings are also assigned to the Minto area of northern Victoria Island.

It includes a map that clearly overlays where the park is going to go.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: So I think the issue as to whether it was known in 1994 is quite clear. In fact, it was known.

I just wanted to touch on one other thing. When it comes to whether we should choose a piece of land over here or over there, the portion they're saying should be excluded is not without specific value as to why they requested and we agreed to the establishment of the park, which is to protect the core calving grounds.

So what you're suggesting to us is that we should ignore the basis upon which we established the park, which is the protection of the caribou, so that we could allow for mineral development.

I understand that position; I don't agree with the position. My position is clearly that we establish national parks for protection purposes and that we stand by that. There may be, 50 or 20 years from now, some sort of increased technological process by which we can extract something from a national park that one time we thought we never could.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Okay. On this side, I have Mr. Jordan and then Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Minister, I'm a little bit sensitive I guess to the charge that southern environmentalists are imposing their will on these people. Have these people been mining for generations up there, or is this something that's native to their culture?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There is no mine in this particular area. There are mines that do exist in the north.

But let us not forget that the request for a park comes from the Inuvialuit themselves. It is not something that's being imposed. I suspect, and unless I'm way off base, that everybody agrees quite clearly with establishment of the park. The issue is over whether you compromise a part of the core calving ground to allow for a mining interest to develop in what's been put aside as a park.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. This is just a quick clarification then. If there was a carve-out of this land from the park, is it the company that had the permits that would get them back, or are these up for grabs again?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: It would in all probability have to be that company because the 80% portion is still within their control. If I understand that correctly, it would have to be combined. I don't think the 20% could be a standalone. But I'm not an expert on that, so let me make that clear.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thanks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If it can be answered definitively, perhaps we could ask—

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Yes, I'll provide that to you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm going to agree with the minister again. Are there perhaps 1.5 million magnetometer, or mineralized, anomalies scattered over the 3 million square kilometres of the north?

• 1640

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I wouldn't know the numbers.

Mr. John Finlay: No, I wouldn't know the number, but there are a lot of them.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There is potential in many parts of the north.

Mr. John Finlay: And here we have drawn a line, with everyone's agreement, and now for some reason I can't really unearth, unless someone—maybe I shouldn't even suggest this, Mr. Chairman. We're going to change something for another interest.

My colleague Joe asked about mines. Yes, there's a mill sitting within two miles of Yellowknife that the Inuvialuit and the Northwest Territories and all the native people are not very happy about because it's poisoned the arm of the lake and the fish are all rotting. I saw that three years ago when we were up there with the environment committee.

You make a decision for good and sufficient reasons, I think, and then you stick to it. This isn't the last mine anyone will find in Inuvialuit territory, and when we read that there is some suggestion that we really include more lands, we must realize that the Americans are under the same pressure on the north slope of Alaska. In order to save the Porcupine caribou grounds, we actively say no, don't allow drilling up there on the north slope and don't do anything more out in the ocean. Then, to turn around and say this company might just like to have a mine here, so we'll change it.... I'm not in favour of it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I can't answer that, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): With the indulgence of the committee, what I would suggest is perhaps a quick question from Madame Tremblay and Mr. Keddy, who both have indicated they want to ask a question, and then we'll deal with a matter that Mr. Mills wishes to address—if that's agreeable.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I believe that, in this park, communities will be allowed to hunt, fish, trap and do whatever they want as usual. I believe it will be a first that all that will be allowed.

You also referred to commercial activities being carried out by these people within the park. Are you referring to souvenir shops, although there might not be too many tourists, from what we were told? As far as the mines are concerned, the information I have is that the communities are now the owners. Do they have shares in the part of the mine that would be in their territory and that would be highly beneficial if a mine were to be operated? Would they collect any money? Is it possible that the owners of the mine are lobbying the communities to get the boundaries changed because that would give them some money? They might not see clearly enough the long-term advantages of the present proposal, which would allow them to manage the park. It seems to me there is something fishy in this. Suddenly, they tell us that the boundaries should be changed. I think there is more to this than meets the eye. That is perhaps why we are uneasy with this matter. Why are they asking this suddenly?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Minister, would you care to respond?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'm not going to speculate on the motivation.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do they have any shares or not?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Pardon?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do they have any shares or not? Are they owners of part of the mine?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I don't know the answer to that, and I would suggest that you direct that question to them when they appear here on Thursday. It's up to them to answer that, I think.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, a final question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

I'm just going to read this statement from the Inuit. It states that:

It is true that Darnley Bay Resources Limited

—that's the mining company looking to establish leasing on the property that was under discussion—

ceded voluntarily the prospecting rights to 472,461 acres of land within the proposed park, and waived compensation. In order that the Park Agreement could proceed without a delay of five or more years....

And that was what we were looking at facing in delays. But it is also true that the company did so at the Inuvialuit request. These are the same people who are saying, look, we want you to take another look at this. They understand the importance of it better than anyone else, and it is also true that the company did so at their request and on the understanding that should the mineral prospects of the area improve, the position of the boundary could be adjusted under section 22.1.

• 1645

Now there's some disagreement with the minister's interpretation in the Inuvialuit interpretation, and maybe that's where we're falling apart here, but it also says that effectively the crown in the right of Canada obtained 472,461 acres of permanent lands held in good order by an exploration company, without paying of penny of compensation, and it did so on the urging of the Inuvialuit.

I don't know if there is or isn't room to have a mine, but I think the Inuvialuit are asking that you look at the prospect of it occurring and leave it out of the park for now, on the understanding that it can be mined in a proper manner—and if it can't be, the environmental results will say so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Minister.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'd like to address that point. When you make the statement that they ceded their mining rights conditionally upon being able to reverse that, I haven't seen anything from Darnley Bay in relinquishing their interests that was done in a conditional way. I believe I actually have a copy of the letter here in which they did it and it's not.... I understand your concern about section 22.

I will table the agreement with the committee, Mr. Chairman. It states very clearly what 22.1 says, so there doesn't need to be any disagreement about it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It would be useful if we could have documentation—

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I believe we have it with us. We will table it right—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If we get it to the clerk now we can perhaps distribute it to the members of the committee before the next two meetings, which are scheduled, coincidentally, for tomorrow afternoon at 3.30 p.m. and—

Mr. Andy Mitchell: We have it in both official languages, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Tomorrow afternoon, at 3:30 p.m., we will welcome Kevin McNamee, Director of the Wildlands Campaign of the Canadian Federation of Nature and

[English]

on Thursday at 11 a.m. we have Nellie Cournoyea, who is the chief executive officer of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. It would be useful to have those documents distributed to the members before those two meetings.

This will conclude this portion of the meeting. I want to thank Mr. Amos and the honourable minister for their presentation and for a lively and interesting discussion. I think it bodes well for the next discussions we'll be having on this project.

You never send us easy ones, do you?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to thank the members of the committee. I very much appreciate the interest they're showing in their discussion and examination of the issue.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen,

[English]

please hold on, if you will.

Mr. Mills, I believe you had asked to address the committee.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, there were really three issues for our subcommittee. We had pulled one off the table, which was about the issue of parallel meetings. That has been withdrawn. But I think there are two other areas, and while there is a level of efficiency here, I wonder if we could get the support of the committee for two things, the first being extending our period of time. Initially our committee was going to sit until the end of May and report in June, but we've discovered that there's a complexity in this whole realm of the economy of sport that's going to require that our committee extend its time period—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): To what time, Mr. Mills?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Probably to November 1.

The second point has to do with the fact that over the period of now and the summer, we will have a requirement for some additional research and for some writing skills to help put our draft report together. The cost is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7,500.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Mills, could we deal with the first one?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Sure.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): First, do I sense a consensus around the table to accept this notion of extending the mandate of the subcommittee to November 1?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If you don't give it, we won't do it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Is there any problem with that?

Some hon. members: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Done. You have an extension until November 1.

With respect to the second issue, would it be possible, Mr. Mills, to obtain from you a written proposal for the next meeting?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Sure.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We can dispose of it at that time.

Mr. Dennis Mills: No problem. That's terrific.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

• 1650

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Why could we not do it right now?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's my own personal shortcoming, Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

I do not know what is the proper procedure for a financial request.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There should be a resolution from the Committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): With your indulgence, I would rather that it be Mr. ...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That can wait.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That can wait? If there is nothing else, the meeting is adjourned until tomorrow.