CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 28, 1998

• 1118

[English]

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

I would like to apologize to our witnesses for the late start. It's due to several committees working at once and members having to be spread out all over the place in different buildings.

We are very pleased today to welcome, from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Mrs. Nellie Cournoyea, the chair and chief executive office of the corporation; Mr. Ruben Green, the chairman of Paulatuk Community Corporation; and Mr. Richard Binder, the resource analyst.

Mrs. Cournoyea, thanks for coming and the floor is yours.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea (Chair, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much to the people who are able to be here today. I realize it's a heavy agenda in the political forum, but I do appreciate your being here to listen to our presentation. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee.

Mr. Chairman, the Bill C-38 before you is of a great deal of importance to the Inuvialuit and people of the Beaufort Delta region. This act will set aside in perpetuity 16,340 square kilometres of land in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Mr. Chairman and members, this is a vast area and it's more than three times of Prince Edward Island.

• 1120

Our delegation today represents the main institutions established by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the IFA. Our land claim agreement was concluded in 1984 with Canada. My name is Nellie Cournoyea and I am the chair of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which is a representative body elected by the beneficiaries and charged with administering the affairs of the Inuvialuit in their long-term best interest.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should explain to you a little bit who we are. As for my background, my mother is an Inuvialuk. She is from Herschel Island in the Yukon Territory. My father is a long-term Norwegian who migrated to Canada in 1927, went directly to the Arctic and became a trapper. We stayed on the trap line until I was 16 years old and only went to town perhaps once a year.

Richard Binder is with the Inuvialuit Game Council, and it represents the collective Inuvialuit interests in wildlife and the environment. It is charged with the responsibility of advising government on environmental and wildlife issues and has certain wildlife management authorities under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Mr. Binder is of the Inuvialuit descent, but his mother's side came over with the reindeer from the Sami and became the people who organized and looked after the reindeer when they were at Reindeer Station and for many years.

Ruben Green is a resident of Paulatuk and chairs the Paulatuk Community Corporation. The corporation represents the Inuvialuit residents in the hamlet of Paulatuk and has the authority to manage its own issues. Ruben Green's parentage is Inuvialuk, and in his ancestral background he also has some heritage from Alaska.

We live in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Our families do. We intend to die there. Most of our time is spent in the region. We vacation in the region and we spend our activities on the land.

We are here to speak to you today because Bill C-38, as it is now written, compromises the interests of the Inuvialuit and does not deal with the concerns that we have unnecessarily unsuccessfully tried to bring to the attention of this government. We are not here to oppose the legislation as a whole, or the establishment of the park. Our position is that in light of new information received in recent months, the western boundary of the proposed park is inappropriate and should be amended in order to serve better the goals of the IFA, the long-term health of the region and the interests of Canadians generally.

Although Bill C-38 appears to be simple and straightforward, it is not. The bill does not even mention that the basis of the proposed park is the Tuktut Nogait Park Agreement, and this was concluded by the Inuvialuit, Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories on June 28, 1996. The agreement was signed by six parties, four of them Inuvialuit organizations.

I assume you have already had the opportunity to review the park agreement. So I'll just draw to your attention to three points. The first point is on co-management. The agreement says Tuktut Nogait will be a co-management park and it will be one of the first in Canada. The co-management principle requires the engagement of aboriginal people in a full and meaningful way in the decisions and the administration of parks established on traditional lands. Yet, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-38 does not mention either the park agreement or co-management.

The review clause, section 22.1, allows any party to the agreement to request a review of any or all of the terms. The Inuvialuit were explicitly told by the federal officials that this section would allow for review of the park boundaries, and in signing the park agreement, we understood this clause to be as valid as any other sections.

• 1125

In relationship to economic purposes, one of the seven purposes of the agreement is economic: to support local employment and business and to strengthen the local and regional economies. Furthermore, section 1.9 is very clear that the park agreement must not abrogate or diminish any rights or benefits to the Inuvialuit under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The IFA, which has constitutional status, includes explicit requirements for the federal government to assist the Inuvialuit toward economic self-determination.

Do you want to continue, Ruben?

Mr. Ruben Green (Chair, Paulatuk Community Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Inuvialuit have a very strong connection with our land and our wildlife. People from my community of Paulatuk on the Arctic coast spend long periods of time each year out on the land. In fact, both Nellie and I just got back in from goose hunting season, which is one of the biggest events of the year. Even as some of the people take up jobs in the wage economy, the land continues to be for many the main source of sustenance, and for others a valuable supplement.

The Inuvialuit are engaged in a difficult balancing effort. We want to participate in a real way in the economy of our region and territory, while sustaining our personal and community strength through life out on the land and preserving the health of the land for the future. For us, the decisions about land must be made cautiously, based on the best knowledge of the resources of the land, and with full consideration of the interest of all—the water, the lands, wildlife and the people. It is vital that we get the decisions right.

We think the priority for getting the decisions right is greater than the urgency to pass Bill C-38 into law. It was surprising to see how fast the bill has moved after going nowhere for two years. A simple request for amendment seems to have had a tremendously invigorating effect. One has to wonder why the same enthusiasm has not been brought to bear on legislation creating the Aulavik National Park on Banks Island, despite the fact that it was agreed by the Government of Canada and the Inuvialuit well before the Tuktut Nogait agreement. After all, the lands for Tuktut Nogait have been withdrawn for the use of the Territorial Lands Act for a period of five years.

Our request is based on new mineral information obtained by from an aeromagnetic survey that was conducted in October 1997. This new mineral information substantially increases the assessment of the economic potential of the area on the western margin of the proposed park. It identifies several very prospective intrusive-type targets, one of which is just within the western boundary of the proposed park. This is the first aeromagnetic survey conducted on the area since 1973 and was undertaken with a geophysical technology that is much more advanced than what was used 25 years ago on that last survey.

The 1997 survey provides much better detection than was available for the government's earlier assessment of mineral resources in the area in 1994. At that time, although government reports showed some magnetic character overlapping the western boundary, they said the source of that magnetism was at great depth and outside the proposed park. The new result from the 1997 survey is that the mineral targets appear to be reasonably shallow, with certain targets estimated to be within 350 metres of surface. These depths are much less than those estimated by the government in 1994.

• 1130

As the results of the analysis of the survey became known over the winter months, the people of Paulatuk, the Inuvialuit who would be closest to the park and the mineral activity, had to give the matter careful thought. Over the winter we had long discussions among ourselves at the Paulatuk Community Corporation, and with the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, which is very concerned about wildlife and conservation, and also with the hamlet and all the other people in the community of Paulatuk.

While people still wanted to see the park go ahead, we began to ask whether it would be possible to see a small change in the proposed western boundary that would let cautious, responsible exploration work proceed. Finally, in February, after carefully going over the new geophysical maps, our Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee drew an alternate boundary that would take the exploration target out of the proposed park. While keeping to a minimum the land removed, the alternate boundary was drawn to stay away from the important features of the park.

The discussions in Paulatuk and the region were not easy or quick. Our people take these matters very seriously. We all wanted to ensure that every opinion was respected and that everyone had a chance to be heard. Eventually, the people of Paulatuk came to the view that the decision on the park should be amended so that mineral opportunities are not lost forever just because we didn't have the information we needed at the time of park negotiations.

While it is possible that minerals will be found on the land outside the proposed park, it is equally possible that the only economic deposit may turn up on the target within the park. That is just the way geology works. Paulatuk and other communities in the region cannot afford to ignore this possibility. The people of Paulatuk are almost entirely dependent on social assistance, supplemented to a small extent by sports hunting. While park jobs are needed, we also need jobs from mineral exploration. The communities of our region have very young populations. With many children coming along, we need opportunities and worthwhile job prospects to look forward to and keep them in school.

The jobs that have been promised by the park management board are welcome, but as other Inuvialuit have discovered from experiences with the Aulavik park, there are too few park jobs and guiding opportunities to make a real difference to the community. We know we can use the powers of our land claim agreement to build good working relationships with mineral companies to make sure we get real jobs and benefits from any activity that gets through the environmental approval process.

The people of Paulatuk confirm their consent to revisit the park agreement in resolutions duly passed in February by the Paulatuk Community Corporation and by the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, and also by an endorsement from the hamlet council. At the same time, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Inuvialuit Game Council were discussing this matter, and they also have passed resolutions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Richard Binder (Resource Analyst, Inuvialuit Game Council): Thanks, Mr. Green.

My name is Richard Binder. As mentioned before, I work for the Inuvialuit Game Council. I'm also an Inuvialuit.

Duane Smith, the chairman of the council, was not able to make it here, so he asked if I would come in his place. I'm very pleased to do so.

We were concerned to read that some MPs think our initiative shows a disregard for the environment. The Inuvialuit have a strong sense of stewardship for the land and its resources. It's our concern about the environmental damage from the Beaufort Sea development and the belief that local people must be engaged in that environmental protection that compelled us to work so hard toward a land claim settlement in 1984.

• 1135

The Inuvialuit Final Agreement places the highest priority on wildlife conservation and ecological protection. This priority is reflected in the stringent environmental regulations and co-management regimes that have been commended by national and international environmental organizations.

The priority we place on conservation is also demonstrated by the fact that the Inuvialuit have set aside 29% of our area for parks and other protected areas. This is a proportion unparalleled by any other jurisdiction within Canada. These 12 major commitments are marked on the attached map. This includes three national parks—Tuktut Nogait is one park—one territorial park, and three bird sanctuaries.

In bringing forward this request to amend the park agreement, the Inuvialuit are not moving away from the commitment to conservation. The matter was discussed at length by the Inuvialuit organizations, including ours. The implications of a boundary change for conservation was our prime concern. This area can and will be as protected as any other in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region without the benefit of a park status.

The Inuvialuit have confidence in the institutions and in their capacity to regulate to the highest standards for the following reasons. One, the area will be subject to the full force of environmental regulation under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Our institutions subject any activity to close scrutiny, and stringent conditions are regularly attached to permits to ensure that only activities that are fully compatible with long-term ecological health and the integrity of the land are allowed to proceed.

The precise outline of the area to be removed was drawn after long discussions with and direct participation of the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee. Our Inuvialuit hunters know the land and its resources well, and their well-being directly depends on the long-term health of the wildlife.

This project is still at the earliest stages of mineral exploration, which is much less intrusive than development. Various conditions can be applied to minimize the impact of exploration. The project has already been required to undertake caribou monitoring, to carefully schedule activities, and to remove line markers in order to minimize exploration impact. These requirements are already stronger than in any other jurisdiction.

Given the normal pace of mineral exploration, it's unlikely that a proposal for development would come forward within the next five to seven years. This gives us all the time to undertake research on the ecological resources of the area so that decisions on whether development can proceed, and if so, under what conditions, are fully informed decisions.

The main conservation issue is protection of the Bluenose caribou herd. Protection of the herd and its calving and post-calving habitat is a stated purpose of the park agreement. It's of vital importance for the Inuvialuit, who far more than any other aboriginal people rely on the harvest of the Bluenose caribou. We are confident, however, that our regulatory procedures and systems are strong enough to ensure the long-term health and integrity of the herd.

The strong role the Inuvialuit harvesters perform through the Inuvialuit Game Council and the hunters and trappers committees will ensure that caribou issues will be fully addressed. The screening and review procedures also ensure that the views of the harvesters from other regions are taken into account in these decisions.

The Inuvialuit know the caribou well. We know that while the herd returns each spring to the Arctic coast for calving, the actual area selected for calving can shift from year to year. Sometimes, this is because of differences in weather, an early or late break-up, ground conditions, or because of predators that might influence the movement of the caribou.

• 1140

The area used by the caribou for calving is occupied for short periods each year, usually in May and June. These changes in location and timing of calving seasons are not predictable from year to year. There are areas that seem to be especially favoured for calving. Within the park, this area is generally to the north and east of the Hornaday River. But there are heavily used calving areas outside the proposed park, such as the Bluenose Lake area and the Bathurst Peninsula, and there are areas not heavily used within the park by caribou for calving.

Of course, there's still much to learn about the Bluenose herd. Just last week, scientists received DNA results that confirmed that the herd called the Bluenose actually consists of two distinct herds. This is not at all surprising to the local people, who have observed for many years that there is a difference between the coats of the two groups of animals.

We do not understand with certainty the sensitivity of the Bluenose, or any other herd, to interference. At the same time, there's no evidence to warrant a ban on mineral activity. The caribou is a resilient animal, enduring year after year of the most extreme conditions on earth. With care, by considering new techniques to manage activity, by incorporating fully the traditional knowledge of the local people, by learning from scientific research done both within the new proposed park and outside of it, we will have the opportunity to learn more about caribou.

We're not afraid of what we may learn and we will not avoid any hard decisions that this new knowledge may present. Development can only be permitted if the project can be undertaken without damaging the long-term health and integrity of the wildlife and the natural resources in the area.

In closing, I want to point out that the Inuvialuit have demonstrated a commitment to caribou protection many times over. The Inuvialuit have set aside more protected areas for caribou than has any other jurisdiction: Ivvavik National Park for the Porcupine caribou herd, Aulavik National Park for the Peary caribou herd, and now, Tuktut Nogait National Park for the Bluenose caribou.

No other Canadians have done as much to protect caribou as the Inuvialuit, and at a considerable cost already in forgone economic opportunity. This initiative is for a modest change to the western boundary of the proposed park that would have minimal effects on the overall degree of protection of the caribou or representation of the Tundra Hills eco-region. The amendment would affect about 2.5% or 412 square kilometres of the proposed park region.

Given the immense commitment that the Inuvialuit have already made to caribou protection, the suggestion that this initiative puts the Bluenose caribou at risk is both uninformed and offensive.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)): Thank you very much for your presentation. We can start with questions now.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Just a moment. We're not completed.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were finished.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: He's concluding his remarks, but I want to—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): I apologize. I'm a different chairperson.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: The Inuvialuit request that was put to the Secretary of State for Parks was submitted on February 19. This was followed by correspondence and representations by Inuvialuit representatives in Yellowknife and Ottawa at considerable expense to the organization.

Yet in spite of the support of five of the six signatories, in spite of the relevance of the matter to several current public policy statements, the Secretary of State for Parks, without warning, rejected the request on March 25, 1998. The government moved at once to accelerate the bill through Parliament in an effort to foreclose any further consideration of our position or petition.

So insignificant was the matter to Ottawa that CBC North had the information on the government's decision on the news before I or the people of Paulatuk had been told. So insignificant was our request that it didn't even deserve mention by Mr. Mitchell in his statement to Parliament.

The clear impression given by that statement is that all is in order, uncontested, requiring only a quick glance by Parliament and this committee. I want to assure you, Madam Chairman, that this is not the case. This is an extremely important matter for the Inuvialuit. Our position has been misrepresented to you. This government has done a disservice to the Inuvialuit in rejecting our request pursuant to a legitimate section of a co-management park agreement.

• 1145

At second reading debate, some speakers suggested that park establishment is sacrosanct, that this and similar bills are beyond scrutiny, and that the recommendations by Parks Canada are beyond reproach. We are here today to urge the committee and Parliament to reject that view, refuse to be a rubber stamp, and instead look hard at the foundation of park legislation.

These decisions set aside land forever. It will be impossible to change even if important new information on natural resources comes to light. Decisions on land must be sound, based on the fullest information, must consider the need for flexibility, and must consider fully the interests of all—the land, the wildlife, the natural resources, and the people of the region. If new information comes forward, it is better to take the time to incorporate that information than to stick to a flawed arrangement.

The area we are discussing today is not a vast, empty wilderness for the taking. This is our home. Inuvialuit have travelled the area designated for Tuktut Nogait park, living in it, sometimes thriving, sometimes struggling, and sometimes starving to death in the rough and barren reaches of the Tuktut Nogait area. Our stake in this land is recognized and protected by the Constitution Act of this country, and we are determined that this stake will not be compromised.

For clarity, I would like to summarize the issues. The Inuvialuit signators to the co-management park are asking that the western boundary be modified to remove a modest area, about 100,000 acres, or 2.5%. This request is pursuant to section 22.1 of the Tuktut Nogait park agreement of 1996, to which the Inuvialuit were signatory, which allows any party to the agreement to ask for a review.

At the time of the park negotiations, the Inuvialuit were given to understand by Canada that this section would be available to adjust the boundary should new mineral information warrant an adjustment. The request is based on new mineral resource information obtained since October 1997 from a new aeromagnetic survey, which revealed several strong prospective exploration targets, one of which is just within the proposed park boundary.

At the time of the park negotiations, government reports implied that any minerals were at depth, and outside the park boundary. The new information also suggests much more shallow, and therefore much more economic, targets. Had this information been available at the time of the park negotiations, the position of the Inuvialuit on the specific outline of the western boundary would have been different.

This request is a community and regional initiative based on long and serious discussions in Paulatuk and in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. The lands involved are crown lands within the ISR and are subject to the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, a constitutionally protected land claims agreement.

The Inuvialuit signators believe the area can be removed from the proposed park without detracting from the conservation purposes of the park. We have confidence in the regulatory processes and co-management institutions under the IFA to ensure any mineral activity is conducted only in a way that protects the environment.

The area requested is on the western edge of the park, and the alternate boundary was drawn by those people with the most extensive knowledge of both this area and its wildlife, members of the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, in such a way that it would avoid any of the environmentally sensitive features of the proposed park—in particular, to leave La Roncière Falls, the raptor nesting sites along the Hornaday River, and the most heavily used calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou.

• 1150

The area requested is on the western edge of the proposed park. This area was originally part of the 472,461 acres of prospecting permits held by an mineral exploration community. The company ceded these permits, without compensation, at the request of the Inuvialuit signatories on the understanding that if new mineral resources were indicated, the boundary could be revisited under section 22.1. Effectively, the government obtained those interests at no cost by making false assurances.

The government's treatment of this matter violates several long-term principles of policy and process with regard to protected areas decision-making. Six points in particular demand Parliament's attention.

The decision against our request violates a principle of co-management in Tuktut Nogait park. When five of six signatories to a co-management park agreement cannot achieve a review pursuant to a duly negotiated clause in this agreement, there has to be something wrong. Bill C-38 does not even mention the park agreement, nor the fact that there is a co-management park.

The meaning of co-management and the role of co-management parks need to be examined both for the public interest and for any aboriginal peoples, not only for those of us who may be entering into such agreements. It violates the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and diminishes the role of the Inuvialuit in decisions on our traditional lands.

The new park will set aside an enormous area, 16,340 square kilometres, from our traditional lands. These are lands we negotiated hard for during the long years of claim discussions. Paragraph 1(b) of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which Canada signed and which has a constitutional status, sets out as a central goal the full and meaningful engagement of Inuvialuit in the economy and the region of the country.

The federal government supposedly reinforced this goal in the Gathering Strength commitment to a renewed partnership with aboriginal peoples. Gathering Strength also committed to support community-based initiatives, economic self-reliance, and sound working partnerships between aboriginal people and mineral companies.

It seems to us our initiative is entirely in keeping with the government's statements on aboriginal economic self-reliance and full aboriginal participation in the economic life of this country.

This ignores important new mineral information. Knowledge of mineral resources can also change over time. Geologists can walk over the same territory many times over and many years before anything is found. Ten years ago the Slave geological province was considered barren by the best geologists in the country. Since then, the biggest mineral rush this century has yielded a new mineral industry for Canada, with the first diamond mine starting production this fall and another under review.

This matter raises another parks issue. Northern Canada remains much less well explored than any other part of the country, and it may be decades before knowledge of its mineral potential is as advanced as in southern Canada. Moreover, caribou and other migratory animals often alter their grazing and calving patterns from one year to the next, and over large areas. Both of these facts suggest the inflexibility of national parks status, which makes it inappropriate for wildlife protection for northern Canada.

Neither the eastern nor the southern boundaries of the park, as set out in Bill C-38, have been finalized with the adjacent regions. Tuktut Nogait is not, contrary to some suggestions, an established park. The final outline of the park is not even close to completion. During the park negotiations the Inuvialuit were told by government that there would be further large additions to the proposed park—to the south from the Sahtu region, and to the east from the Nunavut region. These additions would bring the total area to 28,000 square kilometres and would add areas very heavily used for caribou calving.

• 1155

At the negotiating table the Inuvialuit parties were told explicitly by federal officials that section 22.1 would be available to the Inuvialuit to reconsider the western boundary should new mineral information be obtained. It was on that basis that the Inuvialuit gave their consent to the agreement and that we persuaded a mineral exploration company to give up the permits for lands within the park in order that the agreement could proceed without delay.

On the understanding that section 22.1 would allow for the boundary location to be reconsidered, the Inuvialuit persuaded Darnley Bay Resources Limited to cede the prospecting permits to 472,461 acres of crown land within the proposed park, which they did voluntarily and without compensation. The area now requested is about one-fifth of that original area.

Effectively, the crown obtained on false pretences half a million acres of permit land held in good standing by a mineral exploration company without paying a penny of compensation. It also expropriates interest without compensation from the Inuvialuit who otherwise would have had the opportunity to participate in this activity on this land. This violates a fundamental principle of Canadian justice, which requires the crown to compensate fairly those who have lost rights or interest through expropriation.

Before concluding, I would like to thank the committee of taking the time to hear us and for paying our expenses to be here. I appreciate how costly it is. We recently incurred the same costs bringing our concerns to the attention of the federal departments here and in Yellowknife. The cost also illustrates just how far away Ottawa is from the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and from the people who will bear the brunt of the decisions on Bill C-38.

With respect, the distance and the unfamiliarity with the realities of life in the Arctic coast showed in the second reading debate. I had hoped that the committee would hold its hearing in Inuvik or Paulatuk so the people who are most affected by the decision could represent themselves and so you could gain an insight into the realities of the lives and our land. Unfortunately, our request was turned down.

It worries me that decisions with such consequences for the Inuvialuit will be made by people who may be deeply unfamiliar with our realities. Mr. Chairman, you must remember that our people have already suffered from decisions that were made “for our own good”. Such attitudes have already cost our people a way of life. In my mother's and father's generation, families should still make a good living from the land by fur trapping. The destruction of the fur industry destroyed a land-based way of life and, by leaving no option but dependence on government, has debilitated our society and our culture.

Decisions to set aside vast areas may give comfort to some southern Canadians, bombarded by well-funded environmental organizations and unlikely ever to risk keeping body and soul together through a winter on the Arctic coast. Decisions to use parks to protect caribou calving grounds, despite the fact that caribou have an inconvenient trick of moving those grounds across set boundaries, may give comfort to the diplomats of External Affairs, but it is the Inuvialuit and the people of Paulatuk who will bear the cost of this smug comfort.

Although we are here today on behalf of the Inuvialuit, we are not arguing for our interest against those of other Canadians. I spent many years in the service of the public as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories in various ministerial portfolios and, finally, as Premier of the Northwest Territories. I do not believe that Canadians are served by bad public policy, however comforting and easy the decision may be; I believe that all Canadians deserve sound and accountable policy and decision-making.

On its own merits and because of its relevance to this government policy, our request for a review should have been granted. The principle of co-management alone demands that a request by five out of six signatories to a co-management park agreement receive positive consideration. Yet the Secretary of State for Parks rejected our request out of hand, accelerating legislation to forgo further discussion even while both the southern and eastern boundaries remain in limbo.

Instead of considering this as an issue of substance, of importance to the Inuvialuit, the government is acting on short-term political convenience. If indeed this is the case, would it help our cause if the company involved was Canadian Pacific and the location of our land was closer to Banff or Lake Louise? If the minister wants to talk about precedents regarding park vulnerability, why don't we look south of 60?

• 1200

In our case, signed commitments to aboriginal people seem to pale next to the threats from southern environmentalists. Further, Mr. Mitchell had the insensitivity to raise against us a concern over the Porcupine caribou herd, even though the Inuvialuit, through the commitment to Ivvavik park, have done more to protect the herd than other Canadians.

We are here to ask the standing committee and Parliament to redress a serious disservice to the Inuvialuit. Having made a massive commitment to Canadian conservation by giving up 16,340 square kilometres, we are admonished, our motives impugned and our request for a modest adjustment of a western boundary of the proposed park refused. We had understood that the foundation of this park was the Tuktut Nogait National Park Agreement, yet the bill makes no reference to the agreement. Now that Parks Canada has our land, clearly the federal government sees no need to honour the agreement, notably the inconvenient section 22.1.

We are, therefore, asking the standing committee to rectify government's failure by recommending the following:

(1) amendment of Bill C-38 to modify the western boundary of the proposed park, as requested in the February 19, 1998 request from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation—the recommended wording is attached to our written submission; or

(2) suspend consideration of Bill C-38 until the final boundaries to the west, south and east are firmly agreed and three requirements have been met:

(a) a full review by all signatories pursuant to section 22.1 of the Tuktut Nogait National Park Agreement to deal with the Inuvialuit request for the modification of the western boundary;

(b) conclusion of a co-management park agreement with Nunavut on the appropriate eastern boundary of the proposed park;

(c) conclusion of a co-management park agreement with the Sahtu on the appropriate southern boundary of the proposed park.

Until all these boundaries have been fully and finally considered, it is not possible for anyone to assess the trade-offs between environmental protection, economic potential, and social and cultural well-being. Without this assessment, it is premature to expect Parliament to judge the balance of interest.

I understand that the matter of the Inuvialuit owning shares in Darnley Bay Resources has been raised as to whether it affected the judgment of the Inuvialuit in balancing the interest between environmental protection and economic development. Let me start with the facts. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation owned 235,294 shares of a total issue of 19 million, for a fully diluted shareholding of 1.2%. These shares were taken as a small part of the company's lease payments in lieu of cash.

I want to turn to some of the realities. The IFA, or the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, establishes the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Inuvialuit Game Council as completely autonomous entities to avoid any such criticism of conflict of interest. At no time did the IRC speak for the IGC, as is witnessed by Mr. Binder's presence here today. Furthermore, rather than criticize us for taking a small equity position on a local resource development company, I thought the government would be congratulating us for doing exactly as Minister Stewart of Indian Affairs recommends in several policy statements.

Finally, I would like to add my personal distaste for these comments. I find them uninformed and insulting to the Inuvialuit, having no place in the important debate we are engaged in here today.

The Inuvialuit want to see this proposed park proceed quickly. We have committed more land to protected areas and to caribou herds in the north, more than any other Canadians. We are asking for a small change in a proposed park to serve the interests of the people of our region, and it's one in keeping with the terms and spirit of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which we negotiated many years for our land claim. We should not be forced into spending so much time and resources fighting to keep the federal government and its bureaucrats honest to their commitments.

• 1205

It was not our first preference to come to this hearing. We felt strongly this could be taken care of in our representation to the federal government. But it refused to deal with our request. It refused to listen to us. That's why we're here.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Cournoyea.

I'll open the floor to questions. Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Lady and gentlemen, I have a lot of questions to ask you. Your document is very informative. I focused on the recommendations at the end. You say that you filed a request with the Secretary of State on February 19th and March 25th 1998 and that it was denied outright. They did not even deal with your request.

You also say you made the request because you were present at the signing of the 1996 agreement and that section 22.1, if I'm not mistaken, said that you could reopen the file if there were any changes. I would like to know if I understood correctly.

You also say that the additional territory you are requesting is tiny given the small portion currently included in the park. You say that the change would give your people the opportunity to use that land for economic development. What kind of economic development do you currently do to meet your needs and to create jobs? What area of land are you asking for? What other job opportunities will stem from it?

I have a lot of other questions, but I would like you to answer those first, please.

[English]

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: On your first points, yes, you're right. Your assessment is right, your analysis of what we're saying is right. We thought at the time, because it had taken so long with the park, we didn't have a time constraint. It was brought to our attention that this was moving quite quickly since we had made the request for the change. It appeared that minds were already made up.

There are some jobs in parks, but there are not a lot. The change in the boundary is really to allow further exploration of an area that seems to have the potential, or from the new information, looks like it has more potential than was thought from the 1973 information. It has always been a question. That's why we had the clause 22.1.

Since the oil and gas development has left our region, we have had very few economic opportunities. Right now we're doing the DEW Line clean-up, and we've been successful in our bidding on the clean-up, but that will take only a few years to complete. Other than that, there is very little going on in our region. There's also the decline in government jobs and the government being in our region. Most of the government jobs are in Yellowknife.

So there's very little for us, which raises a great deal of concern because our population is very young.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: When the park was created, in 1996, between the signing of the agreement with the federal government and all the negotiations that led up to it, had any mining company had any stake in this?

• 1210

I see that the provisions of the bill state that the government will give you a percentage of the profits, but not royalties. The government would have also given you that mining company according to agreements you already signed.

You also said earlier that the government had given you back 445,000 square kilometres of land without asking you for anything in return and that the mining company was already in the picture at the time. If that correct?

[English]

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Yes, that's correct.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The government also says that it gave you 35% of mining profits. Is that correct?

[English]

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: The mine is only in the exploration stage. The park area has basically taken up the crown land. Beside it is the land the Inuvialuit received as private lands owned by Inuvialuit. In order to get on Inuvialuit property, a concession agreement was made with a company. To make it simple, the company pays rent to continue to explore that area. That's what we get, but it's only at the very beginning of the exploration stage.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Section 22.1 bothers me. When you started negotiating with the federal government, in 1995-1996, and you signed the agreement, if anything else had been devolved, the agreement could have been reopened. You also say that at the time, you had not foreseen any potential mining activity. Two years, from 1996 to 1998, is a very short period of time. Am I to understand that there had already been some mining development, but that you had not recognized that within those boundaries, there could be mining activity?

[English]

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: The information available to us was from 1973. In that information, it looked as though the area was at a greater depth and probably not feasible for mining because of the costs it would take to get to the resources.

At the same time, it was felt that we could have asked to leave it out of the park, but the park people said that if we left the boundaries as they were, there was always a review process to deal with it, should we want to. That's what the people believed.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: But you are saying that the figures that date back to 1973 show that the mine deposits on those lands were deep and that there was a chance that they could be developed. When you received the final results showing that the mines could be developed on that land, is that what prompted you to want to reopen the agreement?

[English]

Mr. Ruben Green: If I may say so, ma'am, the latest information that was given from Darnley Bay Resources Limited under the concession agreement was given to us in December 1997, and on that basis, we bring forward our concerns.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: May I ask another question?

The Chairman: Very quickly.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You say that there could be some mining on the territory that you want to include in the new agreement. Pursuant to section 22.1, you want to reopen the agreement to include that land because of mining potential. Reopening the agreement would enable you to create jobs and provide a decent life to your community. Is that correct?

• 1215

[English]

Mr. Ruben Green: Yes, that is correct.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Did you say that the magnetic surveys were done in October 1997?

Mr. Ruben Green: The aeromagnetic survey was released in December 1997.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So you were aware of the results in December.

Mr. Ruben Green: Yes, it was released to us in December 1997.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: As you say, trying to make decisions for communities and regions.... What is the population base in your community and region?

Mr. Ruben Green: It's the whole total of—

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Paulatuk's population is 300. The total Inuvialuit population is 3,500, in Holman Island, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour, Aklavik, Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. That is the population of Inuvialuit within the region.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: With the discovery of the anomaly being known there for a number of years.... I know the community. As my colleagues stated, in making those boundaries you considered the possibility, but you alluded to a co-management agreement, which you said was lacking in this new bill. Is that a specific agreement?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: This is one of the only truly co-managed and negotiated parks. The people of Paulatuk and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation would not have signed off on a park unless there were some understanding about how it was going to be managed. The co-management agreement exists as a major force of agreeing to the park.

What I did say is that we were very concerned that in the presentation by the minister when he presented the bill for first reading, he did not mention it at all. He didn't mention that there was such a thing. There was no acknowledgement of that fact. And we feel it would have given a better understanding to the legislatures that have to deal with the question put before them. It was a missing piece of information, a vital piece of information that should have been brought forward as part of the argument of presenting the bill.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I know this is a very precarious decision that you're challenging this committee to make, to recommend or support your decision. It's not an easy decision to make.

In my language,

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language].

Especially, an opportunity as aboriginal people to be making the decision with respect to the weight of the future generations of children is very crucial. That's what this is all about. The way I see it, Tuktut has looked at the preservation of the livelihood of your people—the caribou herd. That caribou herd will go on for generations and a mining operation is very short-term and very limited. It's like giving candy: who then pays for the effects?

In my region, where I come from, it's the same thing, except that we don't have to ask for the development. It comes and we try to be part of it. You are making that, and that's the hard part. I have to understand your community's perspective. I know it's not an easy decision. But also, the short time period with respect to your decision has been very much tested here, because on February 19, from the time you had your notice of the easy access to this mineral, from December to February, and the community consultations that took place.... I can feel the burden that was upon you with respect to making this decision.

• 1220

But the intention of having the park is to preserve ecological integrity and also to preserve the caribou herd that generations will depend on.

That was more of a statement. I can't really say it's a question. I just wish I were....

Mr. Ruben Green: Okay. If I may say so, we are landowners and we are very conscientious about the wildlife, and the 29% in protective measures that we, the Inuvialuit, have set aside says a lot. That's very conscientious.

In terms of being landowners and stuff like that, under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement we have provisions for protective measures, for the environmental impact screening committee and for environmental impact review boards. So we firmly believe—I firmly believe—that the Inuvialuit can and will look after their own interests in terms of resources. And we are capable of doing that. We're the ones who live up there in Paulatuk. We're the ones who are going to be affected by this decision. My kids are growing up too. We have a young population. The majority are on social assistance. We need something to make the people feel good about themselves, to get them back to work, to get them back to the wage economy. I firmly believe that we can co-exist with industry.

The Chairman: Mr. Binder, briefly, please. We have the room only until 1 o'clock, so we have to move on.

Mr. Richard Binder: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to mention that at no time would the Inuvialuit ever jeopardize the condition, the safety or the existence of caribou. They will not say, “We want to gain $3 million over an exploration or a development at the expense of the caribou.” They will make sure that if there is any development it'll be done in a fashion that will not damage the habitat or interfere with the movement of caribou.

As he's mentioned, we have the screening and review process, which has been running for a number of years now, has been tested, and has proven itself. It's gained recognition internationally and nationally. We're not going to change the way we do things. We will be as strict as we always were and and we will respect our land. Remember, we have to live there.

Thank you.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: The question was not answered. A more specific answer to the question is the time it took for the decision to be made for the review.... First of all, when this question came up, none of our regional organizations would move until the community was fully involved. The community had been fully involved. They knew what they were talking about. You didn't have to re-address it and say, “Here's the situation.” You could say, “Here's the new information. What should be done about it?”

For a while people didn't really believe that it should be a problem, because it was new information and they would get the review. It came to a concern that when the few questions were asked, which I was asked to ask Parks.... They were not going to be looking favourably on the review, and it was just too bad if we agreed to it, and maybe we weren't specific enough.

But the field work in the community was done. Every adult person was talked to about the review. You can do that in a community of 300. And Ruben and the other leaders went to the school and talked to the older children. From there, the hunters and trappers met and discussed it and then met again and discussed it again. They had people come in with the information. They passed a resolution. Then the community corporation passed a resolution after discussion, as did the hamlet council. Then it came forward. It had to go to the game council, which is representative of every community in our region. Six communities are represented. This is what our make-up is. They had their game council meeting, and each community was asked to look at this issue. They made a support resolution, and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation did the same thing.

• 1225

We were not talking about something we didn't know about, because as we said, we've been dealing with it for six years. So this is not something new; it was, let's trigger what has to be triggered because of this new information. It was not as though anybody brought force, because they were only extending their discussion to the agreement.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

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

As my colleague mentioned, this is something I've been trying to figure out in my mind. I have concerns. There are both sides of the story. I think our goal here is to bring forth legislation that is good, and that's why it causes me a great deal of consideration. I'm trying to understand and maybe bring points to the discussion that will help me understand better so I can come to some kind of decision myself. So I want to say that in the beginning.

First, I want to thank the witnesses for coming, because it was a concern of mine that they had a chance to represent their views and their concerns and their interest.

But I come back to an agreement, and I see when there's an agreement that it means something and that it took a long time to negotiate. I wonder, if at some time in the future there are other sites within the described boundaries that show positive mineral deposits, would we be splitting this some more? Are we going to start tearing this piece of ground apart piece by piece? I'd like to get some kind of clarification from our witnesses on that.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Okay, let me go back a little bit. Because the company had given up the land, there was a suspicion there may be something more there than we thought. But Parks Canada said we'd like to have all this part, and you have a review process.

There's no intention of looking at any other areas in the park for minerals. We don't know what's there. Maybe we've forgone something, but there's no intention of opening or splitting it apart.

I don't know what would happen if all of a sudden there was a massive explosion and all the lichen died because of airborne pollutants, because that's the only thing we face—airborne pollutants and current pollutants in our region. What a few people do is insignificant. What a couple of visitors who come to the park do is insignificant.

Our big problem is airborne pollutants. We can protect everything, and if something happens in Russia or Mexico and the ozone cracks, what are we protecting? If it burns up the lichen, if there's no lichen, there are no caribou. I don't know what would happen, but we're not talking about those massive forces right now. We're talking about a park we know about and an opportunity we know about, and we're not talking about anything else at this time.

As I said, our first preference was to deal with it with the Liberal government, saying this is an agreement; let's fix it before it goes into legislation.

The people of Paulatuk do not realize that when the parks get land, the parks own that land, and God forbid that Parks should even be questioned that you get any part out of the land. I know that; the people of Paulatuk don't know that. They act in good faith, and they act in the belief that there's honour at the table. Had I been there, maybe I would have raised a few things. But Parks is that way; you grab it and you hold on to it.

• 1230

No, there's no intention of looking further at it. We don't know what's there, but this is just the area that was in question in the first place.

Mr. Mark Muise: Ms. Cournoyea, you bring an important point. I wasn't at the table during the negotiations, and neither were you, I understand. Mr. Green was.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: She was at the table during the signing.

Mr. Mark Muise: No, Ms. ...

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, please.

[Translation]

We will let Mr. Muise ask his question.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I apologize.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: So, Madame Cournoyea, for clarification, you were not at the table when section 22.1 was written or struck. Is that correct?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: I was partially involved to make sure something happened—

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: —because I think there would have been less than that if I didn't bring it to the attention—

Mr. Mark Muise: Where I'm going with my question is that I wasn't there and, Madame Cournoyea, you weren't there.

The point I'm trying to get to is, when I read section 22.1, it says it will be reopened for negotiation if all signatories to the party agree. If the federal government chooses not to open this and in the future they for some reason want to choose to reopen the negotiations, I think they are in a bad way and they will have a lot of difficulty having the other signatories open it.

But the point I'm trying to make is that you were not there when that happened, and I was not there. Reading what I see leads me to believe everybody was happy with that.

It goes back to my initial comment. It's not an easy decision we're faced with here today. But if you reopen this negotiation without all parties agreeing, then what's the use of having an agreement? That's one of the things I'm having trouble with.

The Chairman: Are you making a comment, or are you asking?

Mr. Mark Muise: I don't know what I'm doing, Mr. Chairman. I'm frustrated, purely frustrated with this issue, because I'm trying to be fair to all parties involved. I've made representations to this group that it was important that they have a chance to make their representation, but we're still faced with a negotiation process that took a lot of years to happen.

On one hand, we have a group asking us to say that's not important; let's throw them out and restart. But if we do that, we'll always be doing that. If you're reopening, what does it mean?

The Chairman: Let's ask the witnesses if they wish to comment.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

The Chairman: Perhaps Ms. Cournoyea, or Mr. Green, who signed the agreement, who was part of the agreement process, would like to comment. Then we'll move on.

Mr. Green.

Mr. Ruben Green: The rest now, for our request, is new mineral information and also the section 22.1 clause. Also, five of the six signatories had passed the resolution. Also, the IFA in the established protected areas—the Inuvialuit Final Agreement—has provisions, and I ask, where are the Sahtu and Nunavut sections of this proposed park?

As to the impact of our request, there's none; I foresee none in terms of impact. The lands there are withdrawn for five years. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement has protective measures in terms of exploration.

Also, I want to get back to the band decision. Is there one set of rules for Canadian Pacific Hotels and one set of rules for the Inuvialuit?

What we're asking for is a redefinition of the boundary, and possibly slowing the process down so we can get a better understanding of the whole situation, especially with the Sahtu and the Nunavut aspects of it, and also our legitimate request.

• 1235

We the people of Paulatuk will be the most affected by the decisions you make—most definitely so. We have a very young population up in Paulatuk. I forget what is the percentage of the population.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: It's 60% under 18.

Mr. Ruben Green: So that's a very young population, and we're the ones who are going to be affected by that. We live up there and we're planning to live up there all our lives—as Nellie was saying, until we die or something.

A voice: Hopefully many years away.

Mr. Ruben Green: Hopefully.

The Chairman: We'll move on now to Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all I'd like to speak about your comments with regard to rushing it through and suggesting the Liberal government has taken somewhat of a lackluster attitude towards your presentation. Certainly the committee as a whole is made up of a majority of Liberal members, and as you can see, irrespective of Liberal, Bloc, NDP, or Conservative, I think everybody's wrestling with the issue to try to do what they think is best. So it's not a question of political gain or anything other than that, but of trying to find a good solution.

In my own opinion—and I'm sure it is the same for my colleagues on either side of the table—it doesn't matter whether we're dealing with proposed parkland in the Niagara Valley, in Nova Scotia, or in the North Arctic; we want to do what is best.

I'm sure you would agree there are many parts to consider when deciding the boundaries of a park, not the greatest of which is the potential economic benefit, and certainly other factors equal to or greater than that are important, such as the maintenance of a very delicate ecosystem; safeguards to wildlife and its habitat; and as a federal responsibility, making sure there is a maintenance of natural environment, not just for our generation but for your children's generation.

It's in that regard that we're wrestling with the economic versus our societal and our natural responsibilities as well.

More specifically to the economic side of it, in regard to this find that the Darnley Bay Resources company has found, can you give me an idea of the percentage that is actually in this tract of land that you're asking be excised out of the entire tract? What percentage is it, roughly?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: It's 10%.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: About 10% of the total find.

As I understand it, there is an opportunity to explore, investigate, and mine the majority of the find over the next several years and not necessarily use the parcel of land that is presently proposed to be in the parkland. Is that correct?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: I suppose you could do that, yes.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Since 90% of it is outside this small tract of land.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: But the point with the findings from the aeromagnetic survey—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have some information here on it, yes.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: The recent one—we got the results in December 1997—shows that the portion in the park is close to the surface and that with the finding, with the new information, it would be the better area to be exploring and looking at.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Actually I just note as a comment along here that the results of the company's 1997 aeromagnetic survey identified seven magnetic horizons, or so-called hot spots, of mineral potential, one of which is in the park. One of the smaller hot spots is off the coast, as is a portion of another one. Two other areas outside the park are targeted for investigation as well, above and beyond that of the park, as I understand it.

• 1240

What I'm leading into is that this represents a fairly small portion of the entire find, or the anomaly. In deciding to maintain that entire land tract—and I'm not suggesting that is the end result, but if it is—it's not as if we're compromising the entire development of the mining company, by any stretch. I want to make sure that is clear.

I want to come back to the rationale for excising this parcel of land out of the tract. Is it safe to say the main reason for the concern over the boundary is there would be somewhat of a block in place stopping Darnley Bay, and in turn the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, from achieving full economic benefit of this find?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Well, you know—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm trying to get to the bottom of what the rationale is behind taking out this one chunk.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: But the aeromagnetic survey showed that unfortunately, the particular area in the park shows a great deal of promise, because of the depth. It's like everything else, I guess: you can have 100% and you can still say you have 100%, but if you take 10%, the 10% may be the 10% you really need. We don't know that yet. A lot more work still has to be done on the property, I would say.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Like Mr. Muise, I was not there, and I'll come back to your signing of the agreement. From the information I've been provided—and Mr. Muise has led into that—over 20 years of studies and investigations have been done in a variety of different ways, with certainly a significant amount of local input and the conclusions of the draft from the Bluenose caribou herd management plan.

All these things went into the agreement that's in place and the legislation we're dealing with now. All those things went into place. It wasn't a flippant decision made in 1996, based on a mining exploration, that says 10% is located in a park and thereby change the boundary of the park so we can achieve maximum profitability or maximum economic benefit, and not simply 90% or 80% of that.

As I read through some of the information that's been provided from the aeromagnetic survey, it certainly doesn't identify that the maximum profitable area is simply in this tract of land in the park. It identifies that it's in fact just a very small percentage of the total economic scope of the find. So I'm having some difficulty with it.

One question I would like to ask you is this. You made mention of the holdings, and that certainly wasn't anything I was going to lead into until you made mention of it, but I need some clarification of it, perhaps. You're a holder of shares in Darnley...?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Darnley Bay Resources.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Okay, Darnley Bay Resources Limited, and it's only 1.7%?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Yes.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Which is very small and insignificant in the percentage of the total make-up of the company, 230,000 shares. What's a share worth?

Mr. Ruben Green: It's worth 75¢.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Where I'm struggling, and I guess where we're all struggling, is I consider it every bit as much my responsibility as a parliamentarian to maintain ecological integrity and maintain that ecosystem, wherever it may be. One of the things I intend on doing this summer is taking the family up to Whitehorse and spending some time in the Northwest Territories. But whether it's there or whatever coast it is in Canada, I look at it as my responsibility, as a member of Parliament, to maintain that ecological integrity. It concerns me.

Mr. Muise made a very good point. What happens if there is a very significant find, based on new advancements in technology 10 years from now, another five kilometres in? Do we reopen again?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: But, you know, one of the things you have to understand—and this is what we don't have time to deal with with you—is there are a lot of things we can bring to your attention, but it's difficult to ask people as busy as you, taking on as many different responsibilities as you do, to sit down and go through the whole process of the final agreement, how it's set out, what could happen and what can't happen. There just isn't enough time to do that. It would not happen because the people of Paulatuk have never identified any other area. There is no other area that is really known, and it is doubtful anyone would ever really consider another area. We don't even know what's in that area.

• 1245

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That's Mr. Muise's point exactly.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Yes. I would say that on this review the question was about that one area. That's why the review clause was put in. It's not for the whole thing, but for that one area.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have one short, little point.

The Chairman: One last, short question, Mr. Bonwick, and then I'll pass on to Ms. Bulte.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Were you not aware when you signed the agreement that this anomaly was in place, maybe as not as close to the surface, and there was some mineral deposit inside the park?

Lastly, is there any reason, other than economic gain in this 10%, why we should consider excising this tract of land from the proposed park?

Thank you.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: As I said before, even though there was a potential there, the extent of it was really not known until the 1997 results were there. Because the potential was not really known, Parks Canada said if it's in the park, there's a review clause here. Everybody understands what that review clause meant; unfortunately—I think Mr. Muise is right—we should have put it explicitly.

But I would be very surprised if anyone who was anywhere near those negotiations would say that didn't mean there was a concern about it. Officials say, “ Don't worry about it. You have the review.” It's almost like “Don't worry about it. Your cheque is in the mail” by the stuff we're getting right now. But no one imputed any motives on people. They said “Yes, it's okay. If we get more information we'll review that part of it.” It was never to review the whole park or split up the whole park.

The Chairman: Ms. Sarmite Bulte.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: She didn't answer the question of whether there is any reason other than economic gain to sever this chunk of land.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: No.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for coming to visit us. I wish we could have gone to visit you.

I would like to ask you about the surveys. In your presentations you talked about relying on 1973 geological information. We were presented with geological surveys that had been done and filed and were existing in 1992 and 1994. How does your 1997 aeromagnetic survey differ from the results that were available and published in 1992 and 1994?

Mr. Ruben Green: Are you referring to the GSC 1992 and 1994 section that was done by Charlie Jefferson?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I don't know who the surveyor was.

Mr. Ruben Green: It's not my specialty, but from what I can read and understand of the 1992 and 1994 sections pertaining to the aeromagnetic survey, there is a very different amount of information from the aeromagnetic survey. It just shows all the intrusions that stick out a lot better than on paper.

What Charlie Jefferson gives you on paper is just low to medium ratings and very low ratings and stuff like that. That is the difference between the aeromagnetic survey, which show how deep the intrusions are, and the Geological Survey of Canada ones. If there's a section on gold, it just gives you low to medium ratings and stuff like that. That's the difference.

• 1250

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm not a geologist. That's why I'm trying to figure this out.

Mr. Ruben Green: I'm not either. It's just what I understand on that, ma'am.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But in 1992-94, it did show there were significant deposits there, did it not, from the survey?

Mr. Ruben Green: No. If we read what Mr. Jefferson had stated, I think it was low to moderate in that section.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay.

My second question is with respect to the boundaries.

I was disturbed when you said, I think, Ms. Cournoyea, that the southern and eastern boundaries had not been finalized. Is that right?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: No. Initially when Tuktut Nogait park was proposed, it took in a very large area, which also had a large area that went into the Nunavut area, which is where Bluenose Lake is. The caribou there are known as Bluenose caribou. The lake is in the Nunavut area, and then there's another portion that was supposed to be put in the park, which is the Sahtu area.

Those have gone nowhere. Those are the areas that are not being moved ahead at all. It's only our area, within the settlement region, that's moved ahead.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. But the boundaries found in Bill C-38, then, are the southern and eastern boundaries.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You're not questioning those. Those have been agreed to. Is that correct?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: No. There's nothing being done about it. No one's agreed to anything in there.

Mr. Ruben Green: I can hold this up for everybody to see. Here is the boundary, on this section here. That's the Inuvialuit section. Here's the land in question at this time. Here is the proposed section of the Nunavut, but where are they? Here's the section of the Sahtu. Where are they? Here's the Inuvialuit's, so....

I think what the Nunavut section is doing right now is assessing their aspect of the park. I don't know if they'll jump ship to us, but they haven't indicated anything whatsoever on their section, and also the Sahtu.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you. That explains it for me.

Going back to this aeromagnetic survey, was this aeromagnetic survey done by the mining company that's there now?

Mr. Ruben Green: No. From my understanding, ma'am, it was done by Scintrex on a contract.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Was it done on their behalf?

Mr. Ruben Green: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It was commissioned by them. It wasn't an independent finding of theirs.

Mr. Ruben Green: I guess the company's name was Scintrex. They did the aeromagnetic surveys. I guess it started September and ended in about October in 1997.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Ms. Cournoyea, you had said that by changing the western boundary the way you're proposing, and allowing the anomaly to be outside of the park, your community would be able to “participate in the activity”. I think those were your words.

What do you mean when you say “participate”—through profits?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: No. Right now, the area of land the mining company has is on what we call 7(1)(a) land, surface and subsurface land we own as achieved through the final agreement. For anyone to go on it, they have to sign a concession agreement on how they're going to operate and what kind of employment or business opportunities. It could go to ownership, but mainly it's business and employment opportunities that have to be agreed to.

What we expect is that the concession agreement would also move in to take in the area that is out of the park, to be at exactly the same as if it was on 7(1)(a) land.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So it's a concession agreement you have with the mining company now.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That concession agreement would add the other land into that as well.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Does the mining company have a plan with you, or have you gone through that already—what kind of jobs would be created, what kind of economic benefits?

• 1255

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: No. Maybe Ruben can answer what we're doing right now and what's been involved.

Mr. Ruben Green: Yes. Along with Darnley Bay Resources Limited out of Toronto, the Inuvialuit and the Paulatuk are starting up a training program that's due to start on June 8 or something, for a couple of weeks.

Very high interest was shown. If I may say, when Parks Canada came in to look for people to work as park wardens, only four people showed interest in that. When we took names down for the training program, we had two full sheets of men and women along that section, so there's very high interest shown from the people of Paulatuk in that respect.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. Thank you. With respect to the concession agreement you presently have, you explained that your shared ownership is essentially the result of lease payments, is that correct?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: In the new land that would come in, would you have the same type of agreement with the mining company for lease payments, if that new land is excluded out of the park?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: I don't think we would have that, because it would not be on Inuvialuit land; it would be on crown land.

Mr. Ruben Green: The area in question is on crown land. It's not on Inuvialuit lands. We don't want to enhance our lands. No, it's on crown land.

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: We wouldn't be able to.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You wouldn't be able to make an arrangement with the.... Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, do you have one last question?

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, in light of the sentiment I'm noticing around the room, it seems we're having difficulty with this issue, and I'd like to ask or make a motion that we have extra time to study this issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, you know you can't make a motion just like that. You have to give 24 hours' notice, first of all, unless there's unanimous consent of the members.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, well, that's what I'm asking, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You would also have to have a quorum of nine people, which we don't have right now. I think members will think about it, and if you give notice, then they can vote on it as the time comes.

Mr. Binder.

Mr. Richard Binder: Mr. Chairman, when I was talking about protected areas, I did have two maps that show the protected areas within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and I meant to give them to you, just for your records.

The Chairman: If you leave the maps with us, I'll make sure they are distributed to all the members of the committee, including those who aren't present today.

Are there any other questions? If not, we'll adjourn the meeting. Yes, Mrs. Cournoyea?

Ms. Nellie Cournoyea: I just would like to say, again, thank you to the members who were here. I'm really very apologetic, because we have been put in a very difficult situation with the fast-tracking of this bill. If we had more time, we would be able to bring our message and knowledge to more people.

We understand the time and the type of jobs that the members around this table have. If at all possible, if we can be allowed to have the space that's required to do that work, we would very much appreciate it.

It would help us as well, because since the signing of the final agreement we've done very little work in Ottawa. People have changed, and oftentimes we feel slighted or insulted because people don't know who we are, don't know anything about the claim, and a lot of times it's all business as usual.

We are planning to do a better job of keeping up the profile of the Inuvialuit, particularly in the time of division, because in division, we'll be the only Inuit left in the western territory. We are going to have to struggle for identity, and fight significantly, because we're not as big a population as the rest of the NWT.

• 1300

We used to work very closely with all the Inuit, but they will be in another territory, so we'll have to work very hard, and we intend to do that.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Cournoyea, I can assure you that certainly on the part of all the members of all the parties that I've spoken to in the House, there's a lot of respect for your people and all the people in the north. We take these issues extremely seriously.

We certainly have no intention of slighting anybody, and I don't know anybody I've dealt with, including the political and other people in Parks Canada, who feels that way at all. People might have different perceptions of issues, and of course that's always the way things work in a democracy. I can assure you that we are going to work with our clearest conscience to try to do the best we can in the collective interest of all of us.

Thanks very much for being here, Ms. Cournoyea, and Mr. Green and Mr. Binder. We appreciate your presence. Thanks very much.

The meeting is adjourned.