CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 27, 1998

• 1539

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to the order of reference of the House of Commons dated Friday, April 3, 1998, this is a study of Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act.

[Translation]

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of the House of Commons dated Friday, April 3rd, 1998, this is a study of Bill C-38, an Act to amend the National Parks Act.

[English]

Today we are pleased to have as a witness before us in connection with Bill C-38 Mr. Kevin McNamee, director of the wildlands campaign of the Canadian Nature Federation.

[Translation]

We welcome Mr. Kevin McNamee, director of the Wildlands campaign of the Canadian Nature Federation.

[English]

Mr. McNamee, the floor is yours.

Mr. Kevin McNamee (Director, Wildlands Campaign, Canadian Nature Federation): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present our perspective on Bill C-38.

• 1540

I am the director of the wildlands campaign program for the Canadian Nature Federation, which is a national conservation organization with over 40,000 members and supporters across Canada and over 150 affiliates. I'm also wearing a second hat today, in that I am the federal coordinator for World Wildlife Fund's endangered spaces campaign, for which the establishment of Tuktut Nogait National Park is an important step.

The Canadian Nature Federation supports passage of Bill C-38 in its present form, as it finally establishes Tuktut Nogait National Park under the National Parks Act after a two-year delay. By tabling Bill C-38, the federal government is finally taking action on section 3.1 of the June 1996 Tuktut Nogait Agreement to establish this park, and that section directs the minister to “take such steps as are necessary to add the Park to the schedule of the National Parks Act.”

Our interest in Bill C-38 is that we are trying to bring a national perspective to this issue. Establishing Tuktut Nogait National Park is in the national interest, and a decision to excise from the park the Darnley Bay anomaly will have national implications.

Before proceeding to the substance of our brief, I feel it's important, given some of the comments made yesterday, that I clearly point out some of the things the CNF does and does not do. It is important that this committee recognize that we are not just a southern-based conservation group. We have two northern affiliates with which we work closely, Ecology North in Yellowknife and the Yukon Conservation Society in Whitehorse.

Over the years, our approach to northern conservation issues has been shaped by northern board members, northern affiliates, and discussions with individuals and organizations across the north. It is clearly an area that requires a different approach on some issues, and we try to do what we can to address them.

The CNF is not anti-mining, nor is our opposition to reducing the size of this park for mineral development driven by an anti-mining agenda. I was a founding environmentalist to the multi-stakeholder Whitehorse Mining Initiative. I'm currently a member of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative Advisory Council to the Minister of Natural Resources. We are signatory to the leadership accord of the WMI, which in part supports ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable mining in Canada.

On specific issues, the CNF did not oppose the BHP Diamonds mine in the Northwest Territories. We recognized it was an important incentive and an important project for employment in the north. We had some problems with how that project was designed, but not with it in principle.

Finally, we've been working with the Mining Association of Canada and Placer Dome to try to bring together the mining community and the protected areas community to work out some of our differences.

With respect to the park, Tuktut Nogait is Canada's newest and fifth-largest national park. It brings Canada's national park system one step closer to completion. It is also a very unique national park, in that it was a community that initiated the idea for this national park. Most candidate sites are first identified by Parks Canada.

This park plays a critical role in helping to conserve Canada's biological diversity through the protection of the Bluenose caribou herd, concentrations of tundra peregrine falcons, rich niches of vegetation, and many other aspects I know the committee has received information on.

Briefly, the CNF has supported the establishment of this national park since a feasibility study was launched in 1990. Our role in this park has been one of ensuring decision-makers understood public support for the park, promoting its ecological values to Canadians, opposing the release of mineral prospecting permits to 15% of the park study area in 1994 by the federal government, and advocating interim protection of the proposed park area from any further industrial dispositions until the park study and negotiations had concluded.

Finally, in June 1996 I had the distinct privilege and pleasure to travel to Paulatuk at the invitation of the parties to celebrate and witness the signing of the park agreement.

I'd like to make it very clear to this committee that the CNF supports the passage of Bill C-38, but we do so with some trepidation, as it clearly brings us into conflict with the position advanced by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and other representatives of the Inuvialuit.

It is very important that this committee and Canadians clearly understand the leadership role Inuvialuit have played in both conservation and national parks. Almost 40,000 square kilometres, or 17% of Canada's national park system, has been protected in the three national parks of Ivvavik, Aulavik, and Tuktut Nogait simply because of the support of Inuvialuit communities and leaders. In addition, they've set aside 30% of their homeland in protected spaces, although not all of these prohibit mineral, oil, and gas exploration and development. I said it to this committee in its review of Bill C-29 and I say it again: Canadians owe the Inuvialuit people a debt of gratitude for their national leadership on parks and protected areas.

• 1545

The CNF also applauds the Tuktut Nogait Park agreement as a model park agreement, both for the process employed and the contents of the agreement. It is the product of seven years of consultations and negotiations. And it was clear from the signing ceremonies in Paulatuk on June 29 that this was a made-in-Paulatuk park agreement, one they are very proud of.

I would like to pose the question to the committee: Is the request to shrink the size of the park the result of similarly exhaustive review? I personally don't know the answer, but I think it's important that the question be posed.

As the committee is well aware, Bill C-38 has been prompted by the request to reduce the size of the park by excising 413 square kilometres of land to facilitate mineral exploration of the Darnley Bay anomaly. I believe it's important that the committee not be drawn into a discussion of percentages or the fact that the proposed area is a small percentage of the park. It is our opinion that this area has high ecological value and should remain a part of the park.

In our brief we've touched on a number of reasons why we do not support this. These perspectives were also sent in a letter to the minister in the Northwest Territories who has responsibility for this issue.

It is our understanding that the proposed area to be excised from the park includes the core calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou herd, and we have cited in our brief a number of sources from which we have drawn this information, which include the draft co-management plan for the Bluenose caribou herd, which cites ten years of field observations and radio-collaring data.

I draw your attention also to the fact that the draft co-management plan states that:

Pre-calving/calving/post-calving range areas are the most important habitats within the larger Bluenose caribou herd, and the least tolerant to disturbance.

I also believe it's important that the committee realize that it's more than the community of Paulatuk implicated in this debate. It is our understanding from the co-management plan that there are 12 communities within four land-claim settlement areas that use the Bluenose caribou herd either for traditional use or for commercial purposes. The committee must assure itself that it has heard from these communities if it wants to consider sanctioning the park's reduction.

There are other values to the area proposed for excising. This would be a critical loss to the park, as it contains critical char spawning habitat, as identified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It contains cliffs important to nesting peregrine falcons, and it would most probably be the main entry route to the park.

It is our understanding that over 80% of the Darnley Bay anomaly is located outside the national park. Furthermore, the results of the company's 1997 aeromagnetic survey identified seven magnetic horizons or hot spots of mineral potential, one of which is in the park, one of which is off the coast, and a portion of which is also off the coast. I think it's important to note that geophysical consultants to the company recommended a program of additional mineral exploration of two target areas, both of which are outside the national park boundary.

We believe that this decision may have international implications with respect to America's attempt by the oil industry to open up the calving grounds in Alaska to the Porcupine caribou herd. Canada has continually fought this attempt, and based on my 15 years experience I believe that the United States congressmen who want to see this happen will point to this decision and say that Canadians are hypocrites when it comes to trying to defend its interests in the Porcupine caribou herd.

I believe that to redraw the boundares will introduce a level of uncertainty between the advocates of mineral development and park creation. To redraw the boundaries of a national park after several years of reviewing draft boundaries and mineral assessments jeopardizes the accommodation we reached with industry. I believe it will signal the mining industry that any community consensus reached on specific protected areas can be easily overturned by simply speculating on an area's mineral potential and urging the community to revisit its decision time and again.

• 1550

The committee should also be aware that the original national park proposal for this natural region was located at Bathurst Inlet. This proposal was abandoned in part because of the large degree of mineral staking in the area. A secondary candidate was also abandoned for this natural region. Thus the choice of Tuktut Nogait as the candidate park for this natural region was an important compromise to the mining industry. This is not in any way to underscore the ecological and cultural importance of this park, but simply to signal that there has been some flexibility with respect to the mining industry.

In conclusion, should the committee seriously consider the idea of supporting the exclusion of over 400 square kilometres of national parkland from Tuktut Nogait National Park, we urge you to consider a couple of things: one, the loss of ecological values to the park; two, the possible impact on the calving grounds and the viability of the Bluenose caribou herd; three, the impact on the twelve communities within the four land claim areas who use this herd for traditional and commercial purposes; fourth, the national precedent that such a decision could set for the rest of Canada's national parks; and fifth, the international ramifications with respect to the Porcupine caribou herd.

There is a tendency to think that we can simply excise areas from protected areas and that will make the issue go away. I would like to cite the experience of Wabakimi Wilderness Provincial Park in Ontario, where, a number of years ago, the provincial government excised all areas of timber and mineral value from the park. Lo and behold, several years later they found out that these areas were critical to the survival of Ontario's largest, yet declining, woodland caribou herd. After two years and a million dollars and great uncertainty with respect to timber, various stakeholders agreed that the park should be increased ten times its size.

So I think there's an important lesson there, that when it comes to excising areas, we do not see those issues necessarily go away; they come back to bite us later. For that reason, I urge the standing committee to pass Bill C-38 as tabled in Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. McNamee.

I will now open the meeting to questions. Mr. Pankiw.

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

Mr. McNamee, I wonder if you could discuss in a little more detail or provide me with a little more insight on this area and the calving grounds of the caribou. Apparently it constitutes 2.5% of the total area of the park, but obviously what you're saying is it would have a much larger than 2.5% impact on the calving grounds. Could you put a percentage on it, or can you try to illustrate for us just how important that area is for that?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: One of the things we did was attach to the brief a map of the core calving grounds. It is my understanding that map was produced by Parks Canada and is based on the data and a map that was in the draft co-management plan for the Bluenose caribou herd. So based on field observation that goes back to the late 1970s and through the 1980s—that's ten years' worth of data that was gathered in regard to the calving grounds—they defined that map.

It is also my understanding that in information provided to the communities based on satellite data that was gathered from 15 caribou, but gathered from there, they confirmed that the area that is being proposed is heavily used during the calving season. In addition, when the Canadian Wildlife Service did its field survey up there, which produced a report that was released in 1992, they also spoke to the importance of this area. In addition, they also point to other values within this area along the Hornaday River, with respect to nesting wildlife and the char fishery. So from what we've seen, some of this information is out there.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I understand what you're saying.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: You mentioned the word “percentage”. I couldn't say by excising this it's going to affect x percentage of land beyond the 2.5%.

• 1555

I believe, and assert in our brief, that it will have ecological impacts there, and could have some impacts more broadly. I believe you'll hear from representatives of the Inuvialuit tomorrow on this. There is also the social impact in the sense that there are people within four land claim areas and twelve communities who use this herd for subsistence, so I think that's another way to look at the impact. But I couldn't put it on a percentage of ground.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay, you say it's heavily used. Can you give me anything more tangible than that? What do you mean by heavily?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: It's hard for me to give that. Quite candidly, I'm not a caribou biologist. I can provide you with the information and maps we have to assist you in that manner. But certainly calving grounds are very important, in that the herds disperse during most of the year and come together on these calving grounds or nursery areas, because that's where the high-quality habitat for nourishing the young is. These areas provide insect relief, which can have an impact, and also provide some cover from possible predators.

These are very important areas, and the science to try to determine the exact location of the line of these calving grounds is imprecise, as I'm sure you will hear tomorrow. They don't return to the same area year after year, but my understanding is that over a 10-year period there was 40% confidence in the fact that the caribou gather in this area. I think it's important to clarify those two numbers, and you can do that from the draft management plan.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Thank you.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. McNamee, I was impressed by your comment that it took seven years of consultation and negotiations to produce the agreement that has now occurred. It was a made-in-Paulatuk park agreement, and people there were very proud of it.

Is this latest request for reduction to shrink the park the result of such an exhaustive review? Could you give me some sense of the chronology of this new request for reduction? How long ago was this request made? Can you give me any sense of why it has arisen in the last little while?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I think for an exact chronology it's important that question be raised with the members of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, as they are the central players in making that request. I would only be speculating, and I don't want to do that.

As a conservation group, we first heard of this in October or November when Darnley Bay Resources began to fly aeromagnetic surveys over the park. It was our understanding that they had permission to land within the park, but I don't believe they exercised that.

I should also point out that when Darnley Bay Resources, as you recall from yesterday, voluntarily relinquished its prospecting permits to this area, I wrote to the president of Darnley Bay and congratulated him. In fact, the quote the minister made yesterday was in the letter that was sent to me. I'm well aware of that. I'm on their mailing list, so I know what kinds of things they're doing.

The reason we are into this is the aeromagnetic survey began to show more precisely some areas of high mineral potential. In essence, it confirmed the finding of the Geological Survey report that that corner has an area of moderate to high mineral potential, and that's what started this process, as I understand it.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm just trying to figure out how these things work. I guess as world prices rise and fall in terms of different minerals, it may seem more advantageous to go after them in a certain place. Maybe for Darnley Bay Resources that area looks a lot more attractive now than it did four years ago, when they were willing to just let it be dormant. Is that a fair assessment?

• 1600

Mr. Kevin McNamee: That question should more properly be put to Darnley Bay Resources. However, having worked with the mining industry for four or five years, through the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, I know some people spend years looking after an area. Part of the problem is that what you're dealing with here is with a junior company. They have a harder time raising capital to mount the kind of exploration programs they need to do. That job is even harder given what's happened with Bre-X and how that has scared off investor confidence, particularly in junior mining companies.

My interpretation of events is that part of what's at play here is that in order for the company to raise even more capital, they have to demonstrate to investors that they have access to virtually the entire anomaly. Given the fact that some of the anomaly is within the national park, that may possibly scare off investors, although I don't know.

Ms. Wendy Lill: It would seem to me, then, all the more reason that we have to hold the line on something like this, so that we are not simply pawns to investors who may hold us for ransom, in a sense.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: If I may, I think it's very important to point out that Darnley Bay Resources, in my understanding, has been a very good player in this area. They have always sought out permission. They've entered into agreements with the Inuvialuit. So I do not want to cast Darnley Bay Resources as any kind of evil player in this. I think they have done, again, a leading job in this area of trying to work with aboriginal people.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Just one more, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Briefly, Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: You mentioned the twelve communities within four land claim areas who are using these caribou herds. Do we have any sense of their opinion at this point in time on the reduction of the park? How do we actually gather up that information so this committee has a better view of things here?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I don't know the opinion of the various communities. Reading the draft co-management plan, it was very clear to me that there are a number of communities implicated in this. It is also my understanding that when we were drafting our letter to the Government of the Northwest Territories, part of what they were doing was consulting with the communities.

But, again, I can't speak for the communities, and I couldn't offer an opinion as to what they felt about this proposal.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, just hold it a minute.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, would you like to question the witness now or would you prefer to wait?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I do not know what questions have already been asked, but I might have two.

The Chairman: Go ahead. You are free to ask the questions that you would like to ask.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): They have probably already been asked.

The Chairman: They will be asked again. That will not be a problem. Go ahead.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is nice of you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Will the bill under consideration threaten the environment? Will the mining operations, even though they are not inside the park, be detrimental to the environment? Could you speak to us about the Cheviot mine near Jasper Park?

[English]

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Would an exploration program right now constitute a threat to the environment within the national park? I guess it depends on how that exploration program is carried out.

Under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, there is a screening board. The initial proposal to fly an aeromagnetic survey and do other work in this area went through that screening board. I know they issued a number of very stringent conditions to the company under which to proceed with that exploration program.

So it's very difficult to extrapolate and say, yes, this is going to destroy the area, because clearly there are conditions—for instance, when should you fly when the caribou are gathered, or whatever?

• 1605

From our perspective, our major worry is what happens if an exploration program does highlight an area that should be developed within the national park. Our concern becomes what impact that will have on the caribou.

Your second question I think posed the scenario of what would happen if there were a proposed mine outside the park. It's a somewhat different situation, but I guess I could tell you the things we would look at. We would look at whether this mine would have an impact on the viability of the Bluenose caribou herd. That would be our first question.

We would not take a stand simply in principle such that because it might be close to the national park, we're opposed. We wouldn't do that.

In the Cheviot mine case, we believe there was clear evidence that this mine should not be permitted. So we would look at, in this case, how it would affect the park. How would it affect some of the major river corridors? How would it affect the caribou?

Right now, I don't know the answer to that. The draft co-management plan for the Bluenose caribou herd also poses that question. It says that it's not clear what the impact of exploration and development would be on the herd. But I think the evidence is that within calving grounds it can have an impact.

The Chairman: Okay, Madame Girard-Bujold?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McNamee, thank you for appearing once again before the committee.

In your comments, you mentioned that you support Bill C-38 with some trepidation. Then you spoke of the role of the Inuvialuit in conservation. If we think that this government basically received a failing grade by the environment commissioner, isn't it possible that the Inuvialuit might be in a better position to judge what impact it would have on the environment?

One step further, the Inuvialuit have dedicated 29% of their lands as protected areas, whereas the Government of Canada basically hasn't reached their goal of 12%, which would represent the entire national parks system.

I'd like to you address that first, and then I have another question.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Again, as I stated in my testimony, there's no question that the Inuvialuit have been leaders and are leaders in this area. I'm simply trying to bring to this committee the perspective we have and that we have some concerns based on the information that has been gathered and circulated that proposed mineral exploration and development could have an impact on those conservation values of the area.

I think you'll have an opportunity to pursue that with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and others tomorrow. I'm presenting to you what our conclusion is based on what we have seen. The only other thing I can add to that is that unfortunately, when there is controversy that's when Canadians hear about these stories. Very few Canadians have heard about Tuktut Nogait National Park and the other parks the Inuvialuit have created. So we haven't done a good job of telling people how much better they've done the job with respect to other governments.

Mr. Mark Muise: I guess our goal as a committee and as parliamentarians is to make the best piece of legislation possible, also taking into consideration the groups that are involved and the impact it can have, either negatively or positively, on them.

I would ask this question of you. Do you see a problem with delaying the passage of this bill say until the fall so we have a chance to better look at this legislation and make sure we're doing the right job here?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I'm leaping ahead of our board of directors, but I would have no problem supporting the notion of bringing in some more witnesses to discuss this bill. After all, my understanding is that you have the Secretary of State, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, and the Canadian Nature Federation. You may want to bring other witnesses to hear more about this bill.

• 1610

Mr. Mark Muise: We're getting pressed for time, and I find that every time I have to make a decision under pressed time, there's a danger. As I said earlier, and as has been my experience with other members of this committee, we want good legislation. I have to commend the group on that, because it always seems to be the intent when the group meets.

Would you support the notion of delaying this until the fall so that we can really look at it and do the proper work that has to be done?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I would simply put it this way: if you feel that you need to bring more witnesses in to examine this bill, I would suggest that you go ahead and do that.

Mr. Mark Muise: You also mentioned four or five things that we should take into consideration, like the loss of ecological value, the caribou herd and the impact on the communities that depend on the caribou herd. Should we also not take into consideration the impact that the potential revenues from a mining development could have on some of those communities?

And understand that we recognize that parks have to be developed and that all things have to be done in an ecologically and environmentally sound way, but we have to face the facts that we live in a society where our economies are important as well. And if we have to take into consideration the impact that a herd of caribou can have on the subsistence of a community—which I think is honourable—would we not be remiss if we didn't think the same way on the opposite side?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Yes, absolutely. There's no question about it.

I've been to some of the northern communities. It's very clear that unemployment is high. In some communities, it's up to 30%, maybe even more. There's no question that mining in the north brings important and precious jobs to the communities. I don't dispute that and I think our signature to the Whitehorse Mining Initiative demonstrates that, as does the fact that we have not opposed a number of mining projects.

When it comes to this piece of land, I guess we feel that there are overriding ecological values to it, and based on seven years of discussion and the fact that it was known before that there was a moderate-to-high mineral potential, that decision was made. And again, I point out the fact that the company's initial targets are outside the park and that they have identified them based on the recommendations of consultants.

I think where we are remiss is in not bringing this legislation to make it a national park forward earlier, thereby possibly delaying some of the economic benefits that would accrue from this park, delaying the possible visitation of people to this park and also delaying bringing important jobs and income to the community.

And second, I also have a concern that the cuts to Parks Canada have in fact reduced the amount of economic benefits to local communities. In all of this discussion, this is the part that is not being brought forward.

I was pleased to hear the minister saying yesterday that $ 10 million would be spent on this park. I think it's really important that this committee stress that in its recommendation to Parliament and that it continue to make sure and press Parks Canada and the federal government to spend that money in the north. Too often, park agreements are signed and we sort of cut the ribbon, walk away and head south, and the money doesn't flow. I think that's a really important consideration here and it goes with including that land.

Mr. Mark Muise: You made a comment in your last statement that the bulk of the anomaly falls outside the park. What I'm thinking is that at this point it's not fully determined what in the anomaly falls under the boundary of the agreement. If there were a carve-out—if I can call it that—if a study is made that finds there's really nothing of major value there, that land could then in fact be given back to the park and it would accomplish what you are asking. Could something of that nature fly, have benefits for both parties, and still accomplish what you would like to see happen?

• 1615

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I understand what you're saying. In my role as an endangered spaces coordinator with the World Wildlife Fund, we developed a set of principles to guide us in our efforts. We acknowledged that when it came to proposed protected areas you can't say no every time, because there are different circumstances with respect to areas.

When it came to the notion of carve-outs, we developed a principle that said we would be prepared to support the notion of carve-outs if it were demonstrated that there was no ecological value to the area. In our opinion, and based on what we have seen in the various documents circulated, there is ecological value to this area. And there are social considerations in terms of the importance to the other community and political considerations with respect to our own domestic agenda and other national parks. There has not been an area excised from a national park for industrial purposes since 1956, in Cape Breton Highlands National Park.

Clearly, given that there are seven other national parks not under the act, I predict that other industries would look at that and say maybe we should go after revisiting those park boundaries. I think there are a number of local, national, and international implications of such a decision. Plus, it is our understanding that this has gone through an exhaustive review already.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, last question.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you. I was testing how far—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You've been very generous, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I have been very generous.

Mr. Mark Muise: You have. Thank you. I was wondering when you would cut me off.

With respect to understanding the international and the political ramifications, I have to agree. I understand them and I see the value. But you refer to it as a park, and as I understand it, it is not a park yet because the legislation has not been passed. There is an agreement among signatories, but.... Am I understanding it incorrectly?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: That's a tough one.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's why I'm having trouble with it.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: In my understanding, it was very clear in the agreement that when the Minister of Canadian Heritage got on the airplane and left Paulatuk on June 29, 1996, it was her responsibility to table legislation in the House to bring the boundaries of this national park into effect, and that legislation has been delayed for two years. It has allowed the company and its documents to tell the public right after the agreement was signed that this is a national park boundary.

Even Darnley Bay Resources acknowledged on its web site that this was a national park boundary, but as the federal government delayed bringing in the legislation, that reference started to change to “proposed” national park boundary. My understanding was that the last step was a mere formality.

From a political and public perspective, if you suggest to Canadians that Gros Morne, Pukaskwa, Pacific Rim, Aulavik, Grasslands, and Bruce Peninsula are not national parks but are just something that could be opened to having their boundaries revisited, I would suggest that you would draw the ire that the first Minister of the Environment did when the Progressive Conservative Party won election in 1984. Canadians do respond to that.

That argument doesn't help to advance the specific issue at hand. I consider it a national park. That's what I thought the purposes of the agreement was—to make it a national park.

The Chairman: We'll come back to you, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, please.

The Chairman: Who on the Liberal side wants to comment?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I can make a comment.

I've listened. Your position is quite clear. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No.

The Chairman: Madame Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No.

The Chairman: Mrs. Lill.

• 1620

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have to say that I would be very concerned about the precedent this would set if we did suddenly start moving boundaries around for industrial purposes. There's no question that it scares me a great deal and it scares members of my party. It's important that we make decisions very carefully, based on the ecological and the social considerations that were struck initially, and unless there can be as exhaustive an approach to the revisiting of this, then I think we have to just proceed with it as is.

However, I will say that if it's necessary, bring in a whole bunch more people and let's.... But certainly let's not try to make any snap decisions based on one group that is suddenly lobbying in another direction. That's just a statement, I guess.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, do you want a second period of questions?

Mr. Mark Muise: No, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McNamee, I guess you've made the issue very clear.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Carry on, Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: A suggestion was just given to me by someone about the possibility of video-conferencing with different groups if we cannot bring people in. We are talking about 12 different groups. I throw that out as a possibility if we still feel that we're not sure about the situation.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. McNamee, thanks very much for appearing here. Obviously the issue is quite clear. I think it's crystal clear to people that there are two options, and I think you've made your side and your position quite clear to us. We'll hear the other witnesses tomorrow and go from there. I really appreciate your appearance here today.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Thank you for your indulgence of my somewhat lengthy answers at times. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

The Chairman: You're most welcome.

The meeting is adjourned.