[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
.1534 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. Thank you all for being here. Today we welcome Sheila Genaille from the Métis National Council of Women, with Janice Henry from the Saskatchewan Métis Women.
The purpose of this exercise is this committee has decided that if we are to serve the aboriginal communities as well as the department well, we should undertake an education process. We did receive comments to the effect that ``we come back every two years and educate you, now we're looking for action; some of us are tired of just coming here and presenting to you and we want to know that something will come out of it''.
This committee is working from a series of binders. Probably you have presented here before, but if you come to my office and look for reports you'll have to look through a mountain of paper. Your presentation and questions and a report will be tabulated and they will be really a chapter in our binder. It will follow us forever. What you do here today is for a good reason and something will come out of it.
.1535
I want to commend each and every member from all parties, who are really committed to doing what's right for the people we are here to serve. You are here to help us do that.
The following is the way we like to proceed: we have an hour, during which we open the floor to you to make a presentation. Whatever time you don't use will be consumed by members in a question period when you have finished. Please feel free, feel comfortable. This is a friendly meeting and we really appreciate your being here. Without further ado, I turn the floor over to you.
Before proceeding, I neglected one thing that I should do. I'll ask each member to present himself or herself, starting with Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Claude Bachand, the opposition critic for Indian affairs.
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas (Argenteuil - Papineau): Maurice Dumas, member for Argenteuil - Papineau.
[English]
M. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): Bernard Patry, I'm the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): John Finlay, I'm vice-chair of this committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle): Robert Bertrand, member for Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle.
[English]
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): John Murphy, Annapolis Valley - Hants in Nova Scotia. I'm sorry I didn't say hello to you when I came in the door.
Ms Jane Allain (Committee Researcher): Jane Allain, I'm one of the researchers of the committee.
Ms Jill Wherrett (Committee Researcher): Jill Wherrett, I'm also a researcher for the committee.
The Clerk of the Committee: I'm Christine Fisher, the clerk of the committee.
Mr. Guy Beaumier (Committee Researcher): I'm Guy Beaumier. I'm also a research officer of the committee.
The Chair: I'm Ray Bonin, Nickel Belt, and I'd like you to introduce another friend, please.
Ms Sheila Genaille (President, Métis National Council of Women): Thank you again, Mr. Chair. With me are my assistant, Ms Lorraine Rochon, and Janice Henry, president of the Saskatchewan Métis Women. She is also secretary-treasurer for the Métis National Council of Women. Her portfolio with the council is health, in particular children's health, the head start program and that area.
I'm going to read from a text because this is the first time we've presented to the aboriginal standing committee, so I want to make sure everybody leaves this meeting today knowing exactly who the Métis National Council of Women are. Please excuse me for reading, but I don't want to miss anything. Sometimes I tend to get carried away and miss things.
I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for this opportunity to make our presentation today. I'd like to give you a brief background of just who the Métis National Council of Women are.
We were incorporated in September 1992 to advance the collective interests of Métis women. The Métis National Council of Women is a federation of independent provincial and territorial Métis women's organizations from the Métis homeland in the historic northwest.
Our office is located in Ottawa and the members include the Pacific Métis Federation of Women, the Alberta Métis Women Association, Métis Women's Association of the Western Northwest Territories, Métis Women of Saskatchewan, Métis Women of Manitoba and Métis Women of Ontario. As most of you are aware, the Métis are a distinct nation of aboriginal people with a unique, colourful, valuable history and culture.
The Métis National Council of Women seeks to foster a contemporary understanding of the traditions and roles of Métis women within the Métis communities and in society in general. Our primary purpose is to address and respond to issues and concerns of Métis people, particularly Métis women in Canada.
Some of the objectives of our organization are to unite and organize Métis women in Canada, to promote and ensure gender equality, to foster and promote the image of Métis women, to promote the preservation and the enhancement of Métis culture, to facilitate and promote the development of services generally for Métis and specifically for Métis women, influence policy and be actively involved in policy development in all organizations and at all levels that impact upon Métis women. Finally, to establish and maintain a cooperative and productive working relationship with the federal and provincial governments and their related departments and organizations as well as with other aboriginal organizations.
.1540
One of the biggest challenges faced by the Métis National Council of Women is the establishment of an identity, and recognition as a national aboriginal organization. While pursuing the unique interests and aspirations of Métis women, we've struggled to achieve parity of status with other recognized national aboriginal organizations.
Métis have a disproportionately young population, with 57% of the population under 25 years of age.
In 1990, 26% of Métis women in Canada received social assistance, and the situation has likely worsened since then.
The unemployment rate for Métis women is two to three times higher than the national average. Métis women who are employed are disproportionately found in occupations characterized by low pay and seasonal employment. The majority are employed in clerical sales and service occupations.
Despite our lower labour force participation rates, Métis women have a higher propensity to complete high school and obtain post-secondary education than Métis men. Nonetheless, as with other aboriginal women, Métis women are doubly discriminated against in the labour force by virtue of the fact that they are women and that they are aboriginal women.
Due to the exclusion and marginalization policies and practices of the Métis National Council with respect to our organization, we have had to make it clear to government and others that the Métis National Council of Women is an independent and autonomous national aboriginal women's organization.
Further, we have made it clear that other national aboriginal organizations do not speak for Métis women. In making this point, however, the council has been careful not to isolate itself from working with other national aboriginal women's organizations that share many of the same objectives as the Métis National Council of Women.
The Métis National Council of Women is engaging in dialogue with the Native Women's Association of Canada and with Pauktuutit, the Inuit women's association, to build upon the common issues and concerns faced by all aboriginal women.
As Métis women, we face many issues, but given the time considerations today, we have focused our attention on the two major issues of health and human resources development. We believe that without a healthy community, we can't begin to rectify some of the problems and issues we face.
I'm going to talk briefly on the pathways to success program. The Métis National Council of Women is very concerned about the lack of access Métis women have had to the pathways to success process.
We have not been provided with an opportunity to participate in the development of the regional bilateral agreements, nor have we been consulted on the new urban initiative that will make up to $21 million available for economic and community development in urban centres, where the majority of Métis women resides.
The Métis National Council does not speak on behalf of the Métis National Council of Women when it comes to human resources development. As an example of its exclusionary practices, resources allocated to the Métis National Council on our behalf have not been received, nor have we been involved in the finalization of the Métis national framework agreement with Human Resources Development Canada. As a consequence, Métis women find themselves in the position of seeking stand-alone funding for future Human Resources Development initiatives, to provide delivery assistance to ensure that Métis women enjoy equitable access to resources allocated.
On the aboriginal health policy, the Métis National Council of Women has been lobbying the federal government to make good on its red book commitment to establish an aboriginal health policy. The Métis National Council of Women pleaded its case for the need to move on this issue to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.
The government has made a preliminary step in this direction by providing resources to the national aboriginal organizations to develop process proposals. However, the Métis National Council of Women was not recognized in this initial phase, but we are still seeking inclusion in the process.
I could speak for many hours on these two issues, but I would like to pass it over to Janice, whose portfolio is the head start program. She would like to talk to you about that particular initiative.
.1545
Ms Janice Henry (Saskatchewan Métis Women, Métis National Council of Women): With respect to head start, the government committed itself to introducing an aboriginal head start program to address the disadvantages confronting aboriginal children, and give them a head start in life.
The government announced the head start program in the 1994 throne speech, and designated Health and Welfare Canada as the lead department for implementing the initiative. Although the government promised that the program would be developed by and for aboriginal people, Health and Welfare Canada has robbed those words of any meaning whatsoever.
Departmental officials undertook a trumped-up Canada consultation process against the wishes of the majority of off-reserve aboriginal organizations. Following this, they brought together groups of consultants and so-called experts to arrive at draft guidelines for accessing the program, approximately 16 months later.
They then called for the establishment of regional and national head start committees to be appointed by the department. Indeed, these national advisory boards are composed of hand-picked community representatives who vest administrative control and ultimate policy development back into the hands of Health and Welfare bureaucrats, whose self-serving recommendations led to the delivery structure and the selection of committee members in the first place.
We have questioned the secretive nature of their operation to no avail. No information has been provided on such basic issues as early childhood development qualifications and experience of members, the role and results of committee meetings, the identification of lead sites, or the involvement of aboriginal women, thereby perpetuating the veil of secrecy of program administrators.
The Métis National Council of Women raised some of these concerns with the House of Commons health committee, as well as with the minister's then parliamentary secretary, Hedy Fry and departmental officials concerned.
The Métis National Council of Women is seeking a joint meeting of the Native Women's Association of Canada; Pauktuutit, the Inuit women's association; and the Métis National Council of Women with the Minister of Health, to discuss his department's approach to implementing aboriginal head start, and address the ongoing exclusion of aboriginal women in the development of health policies.
Aboriginal single mothers number in the tens of thousands - 47,465 households - according the the APS. The importance aboriginal women play in early childhood development is being minimized, if not outright ignored.
To further discuss this issue in terms of my position with respect to concerns we have as a national organization, we have met with Aboriginal Head Start. We expressed some very deep concerns from a national perspective. Each region identified specific concerns with respect to the head start program and issues that were relevant in their communities.
In response to our concerns - and we also voiced our concerns with respect to an exclusionary process - we all received, upon completion of that particular meeting, a portfolio that basically indicated what Head Start was about and included a tape of the head start project.
We believe, as members of the National Métis Council of Woman, that we have a lot to offer with respect to the head start initiative. Of course, as mothers and nurturers of our community, health, head start and child service initiatives are priorities to us. Therefore, it causes us great concern when Métis women are not playing a proactive role within this process.
I came here to discuss further the issue of head start in order to impress upon all of you that Métis women do have a role to play within this process, and to encourage you to encourage your people to ensure that we do play a role within this process, because we are dealing with our own families and our own people.
Under section 35 of the Constitution, we are a recognized aboriginal entity, therefore we would like to be acknowledged and respected according to that principle. Thank you.
.1550
Ms Genaille: Thank you, Janice. I'll do a little wrap-up. As I say, we do have many issues of concern, but we wanted to bring the ones we found paramount in our areas forward to the committee.
What we are here for today is how we can work together, how we can stop this practice of excluding the Métis National Council of Women. I don't think it's a practice we can change. It's not a blatant practice. It may be something that's overlooked, but for whatever reason it's out there. We have to change that.
We are part of this nation. We are nation-builders. We want to continue that. But we want to have an opportunity to continue that, particularly with our children, to give them a healthy head start.
Further on the head start initiative, at that meeting Ms Henry referred to the officials told us everything was set. In fact, when I questioned them, asking them if the Métis National Council would have any opportunity to become involved, they said no, everything was set. So as a matter of fact we have no opportunity to become involved in this most important initiative.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your very valuable presentation.
We now proceed to question period. I think we can average five minutes per member. Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Thank you for your presentation. I have only one question to ask you, which is unusual.
Last week, we heard from the Métis National Council which, I believe, represents the entire Métis community. Could you explain to me why there is also a Métis National Council of Women? I don't understand.
Do you consider that Mr. Morin, who is the president of the Métis National Council, does not represent you well enough? Is that why you feel the need for an organization of Métis Women of Canada? This is my only question for now.
[English]
Ms Genaille: When the Métis National Council of Women incorporated in 1992, it was to address women's issues. As you are aware, certain areas federally as well as provincially deal specifically with women's issues. Status of women is a good example.
We don't work against the Métis National Council. We vote at the regional level. We are all members of the provincial organizations. We vote those leaders in democratically. However, it is their choice to exclude the Métis National Council of Women from Pathways, the program I spoke of.
As I say, we as a national organization work for the good of the women we represent in the community and the community in general, because what we do as women benefits not only us but our whole community.
The Métis National Council of Women also has members in the Northwest Territories. The territories are not part of the Métis National Council.
So we have six member organizations. It's for the Métis people. We focus on...I don't like to use the term ``women's issues''; however, that's what we look at first and foremost, as well as our children and our whole community. You can't really separate one from the other.
.1555
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Dumas.
Mr. Dumas: I must tell you, Madam, that I am very sensitive to aboriginal women's claims, in particular those of Métis Women, as Kanesatake lies in my riding and I have already supported Kanesatake aboriginal women claims.
You talked about groupings in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario, but I didn't hear you speak of Métis Women of Quebec. Is there such an organization in Quebec?
[English]
Ms Genaille: Not at the present time. We're not aware of any organization in Quebec of Métis women. If there was, by all means, we would be working with them.
I know personally of individuals who identify as Métis women. For example, the Métis National Council of Women for the last three years has been working the aboriginal women in Canada, and on the international level in North America and South America.
When we were developing a workshop for these three areas, North America, Central America and South America, we worked with women from Kanesatake from the Québec Native Women's Association, but we never found an organization of Métis women in Quebec.
If you know of one, I would certainly be pleased if you could pass on that information. We would like to unite all Métis women in Canada, regardless of where they live.
[Translation]
Mr. Dumas: Thank you.
The Chairman: Dr. Patry.
[English]
Mr. Patry: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Bienvenue. I'll just keep going along with a question like the one Mr. Bachand just asked you. There's something I don't understand properly. You said the Métis National Council doesn't speak on behalf of your council, the Métis National Council of Women. You said that in your introduction. There is some discussion now, and always, between the government, like HRD and the Department of Health. I just want to know if your association has women representatives on the national council. That's my first question.
I just want to follow with this one. If I understood you properly also in your introduction, it seems that some funds that are allowed, let's say it's for health or HRD, don't seem to reach the population for which they are supposed to be destined. I'm very concerned about why this money doesn't reach people who need health care or HRD.
I'd like you to answer these two questions, please.
Ms Genaille: I'll try. When I say they don't speak on our behalf, it's because they don't come to us and dialogue with us and get our feedback on various issues.
Take, for example, the pathways program. We had no final input into that national agreement. I have had discussions at the regional and provincial levels. They don't have input as an organization. We were at the table with Métis National Council with the last administration. We worked side by side.
We were all Métis and we were all going after the same results; however, this particular administration asked us to leave the table - whatever the reasons were, you would have to ask them that - which we did.
Again, I must stress that we are not working against the Métis people in this country; we are trying to bring this forward and make sure that all of us have the same playing field as everybody else. We want to ensure that women have an equal opportunity and are not paid lip service or forgotten or thought of at the last minute.
In fact, as for this standing committee, I heard of it from someone else who phoned and said that we were a national organization. As I say, I'm very pleased to be here. But that kind of policy - I don't even know if it is - has to change so that the Métis women in this country must be heard.
Mr. Patry: As for my first question, did you have any women representatives on the national council?
Ms Genaille: With the past administration, the Métis National -
Mr. Patry: This one.
Ms Genaille: Not this one. We were asked to leave the table at this one. No, we don't have one.
.1600
Mr. Patry: I don't know if you understand me properly. I mean there is an election for the Métis National Council. Do you have some women who tried to be elected to that board - that's the first thing - the national one? You told me you have some in the regions, but I want to know about the national board itself.
Ms Genaille: The members of the council, just as with the Métis National Council of Women, are provincial and territorial organizations. They are elected in their regions, province- or territory-wide. They sit on the council. That is the same as the Métis National Council. For example, in the province of Alberta they're going to an election this year. I happen to know that, yes, a woman is going to run for that position. If she wins, she will be sitting on the Métis National Council, I hope. That's how it's set out.
Mr. Patry: Okay. The second question I asked was about the funds that were supposed to be allocated, let's say for health. What has happened with these funds? Do they reach the population? You seem to say no, they don't reach the -
Ms Genaille: The Métis women haven't had a chance...and Janice can probably expand on the head start program with the Métis women in Prince Albert, in Saskatchewan, where she is from.
Ms Henry: About the aboriginal head start project in Saskatchewan, we do have some specific Métis communities that have received allocations. However, in the urban areas it has been very difficult. For example, there are three major urban areas within Saskatchewan: Regina, Saskatoon, and Prince Albert. Within these three main urban areas it has been very difficult for Métis Women to play a role within the head start process.
A good example is Prince Albert. In Prince Albert our local newspaper received information that there was a competition for the head start program. They were asking for proposal submissions and it said those submissions should be in receipt by December 31, 1994. In December 31, 1994, Métis Women in Prince Albert were the only organization to submit a proposal. With assistance from the provincial government it received a small monetary grant to hire the services of a consultant. From that part on the Prince Albert Métis Women association contacted the regional representative for head start on a continuum for the last year and a half.
Where it sits right now, the final result was that the Prince Albert Métis Women association was asked to work in cooperation with a friendship centre there, the Prince Albert Grand Council, the Native Co-Ordinating Council, and Aboriginal Women's Council. From that point on we did so; we all worked together as a working group. Unfortunately, Aboriginal Women's Council and Native Co-Ordinating Council determined that they had a separate vision for the head start process, so they decided to remove themselves from the board and submit their own proposal.
What happened at the provincial level was that the provincial organization, because the proposal submission made by Aboriginal Women and Native Co-Ordinating Council exceeded the time limitations available for submission...then the three remaining organizations, the Prince Albert Grand Council, which represents the first nations people in the Prince Albert and district area, the friendship centres, which are all aboriginal people, and the Prince Albert Métis Women association remain on side.
It has been a very difficult process. I've been involved throughout this process and I don't feel we have received the support that would be necessary to achieve some of our goals. We've had a difficult go with the regional representative, who then advised us... It took him fifteen minutes to tell us we were successful in receiving that proposal submission. After that he encouraged us to reinvite the other organizations.
I guess the bottom line is that as the president of Métis Women of Saskatchewan...Métis Women are a recognized provincial entity. We are recognized by the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, by the provincial government, and by the federal government. As members of the Métis National Council of Women, we take our position very seriously. It causes us great concern when we don't feel our issues are being adequately addressed at the national level. This is why I chose to assist in this particular presentation: because that has to start. Dialogue has to start and communication has to commence with all of us so we can have a stronger organization and be assisted by the various governments in that process.
.1605
Mr. Patry: Now that I understand the way the Métis National Council is elected from the regional, I just have one short question. Did you ever request of them officially that there be one person, a woman, sitting on the board? It doesn't say in the way they are elected that there is none or that there is one if it's coming from one region. However, to get one officially they just need to change their bylaw. Did you ever request it officially?
Ms Genaille: Yes, we have done that.
Mr. Patry: Officially, in writing?
Ms Genaille: We have done that officially in writing. We have spoken to it. We had a good rapport with the past administration, with Yvon Dumont, who is now in Manitoba. We worked hand in hand at the regional level, provincial level, and territorial level with these provincial and territorial organizations.
Mr. Patry: But you have done -
Ms Genaille: We've done it and we've asked; it's just not there.
Mr. Patry: Can you supply this resolution to us?
The Chairman: Was there a response or was there no response?
Ms Genaille: I would have to check my files. I don't know if there was a response. We put it on the table at a council meeting. We were putting it out at a Métis National Council meeting that I believe was held in Calgary in about 1993 or 1994. It would be in their minutes.
The Chairman: Would you make a request -
Ms Genaille: I think we wrote a letter to them after the Métis National Council of Women discussed it when they asked... I sat at the table as the national president for the women. They asked me to lead and from the table... Again, I'm going by memory from the Calgary meeting. I discussed it with the members of the Métis National Council of Women, and they instructed me to write a letter to them. We did, requesting that we be heard. They never responded. The women feel it's an important issue that there be women's programs and women's things available for us, and that we should pursue that and continue on as we were going. We never pursued it any further. We didn't get a positive response. We were asked to leave so we continued on as a national women's organization, like the Indian women, the native Indians, and like Pauktuutit.
Mr. Patry: Would you provide this committee -
The Chairman: If possible, we would be very interested in knowing if there was no response or if there was a negative response.
Mr. Patry: [Inaudible - Editor] to start at the beginning.
The Chairman: Could you address that information to the clerk, please. He will make it available to all members. Mr. Duncan, I apologise. I allowed more time but I think it was interesting.
Mr. Patry: I'm very sorry.
The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): There does seem to be some fragmentation of aboriginal interests. On the same vein as the last couple of questioners, when the Métis women have their own organization, does it not help to ensure that the Métis National Council will be all male? Does that not follow?
Ms Genaille: I don't believe so, because it is a democratic process of elections in the region. There have been women who have run in different provinces. Unfortunately they didn't win, but that does not mean that they cannot be afforded...
Again, I must repeat that when we formed the Métis National Council of Women it was for the whole community. It wasn't just for women. It's just like the Pauktuutit Inuit women's association. They don't work against the ITC, they work in conjunction with their community members, with their people. That's what we had intended and still intend to do. If we have, for lack of a better word, immature politicians on the national level, we are not going to have the whole community suffer because of that.
Mr. Duncan: For example, when we had the Saskatchewan elections for the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, most of the organized complaints about the lack of democracy that occurred in the process came from women. Is it not easier for the male species to utilize this argument? Is that not part of the equation?
.1610
Ms Genaille: I think it's like mainstream Canada. How many women have the funds to run for a political position, whether it's municipally, provincially or federally? So too the Métis women.
I think if you take a look at the Statistics Canada APS survey, an average Métis women, during the 1990 survey, was $10,000 a year below the poverty line. When the first concern of the majority of our women is survival, living day to day, there are not too many opportunities for them to run, and the ones who do... I'm not saying you will get three-quarters or even a quarter of the candidates women in the regions, but there are some. Their outlook in life is survival.
Mr. Duncan: You bring up an interesting issue. One of the early statements, I believe, in your presentation dealt with double discrimination. You talked about women and you talked about aboriginals.
Some of those surveys have indicated that university-trained aboriginal men have a higher labour participation rate than the rest of the population. They have also indicated that never-married women have the same level of employment income as men.
So I don't automatically accept that there is discrimination. I will certainly accept that there are a lot of other impediments out there. It's something we hear from just about every group that comes before this committee, and it might be worth really reviewing that basic presumption.
Could I ask you what is your relationship with the friendship centres? I guess it varies a lot by province.
Ms Genaille: I want to make a comment on your previous statement about aboriginals. I think one thing you must all remember when you talk about aboriginals is that there are three: the Indian people, the Inuit, and the Métis. If you take a look at our history you will find that we are Canada's forgotten people. Janice referred to section 35, and that's all that refers to us as we are, an aboriginal people.
A lot of the Métis women say they have a third whammy: they are women. They're discriminated against as women; they're discriminated against as aboriginal women; and thirdly, they're discriminated against as Métis women because they're not even on a level playing field with other aboriginal people.
So I would dispute your comment and we could probably provide you with many examples. Moreover, a lot of the documentation that has been put out on aboriginal people is status blind, it's aboriginal. There's a big difference between the three groups.
In regard to your question on the relationship with friendship centres, other than the people using them, I don't know what kind of relationship you mean. Our community members use them and they're -
Mr. Duncan: Is there a formal arrangement?
Ms Genaille: No.
Mr. Duncan: You mentioned APS in your presentation. What is APS?
Ms Henry: Aboriginal Peoples Survey.
Ms Genaille: 1990.
Mr. Duncan: That's the 1990 one. Thank you.
Ms Henry: Also, to go a step further with respect to the question that you have directed at Sheila, I feel very compelled to speak on that issue. I'll be brief.
From a provincial perspective, our provincial entity has a very solid relationship with the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. At the national level Métis women consist of approximately 52% of the Métis Nation. Therefore, with that in mind, as well as the reality that we have some very specific concerns and issues that pertain primarily to ourselves and our families, this is why we feel it's very critical that we do have a national entity and that there is a need for this entity.
.1615
The Chairman: Thank you.
Two members have indicated a desire to speak: Mr. Murphy and Mr. Bertrand. You will have 15 minutes. There will be room for a third.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming. It's difficult to get a feel for why you're being left out. Nonetheless, I accept what you have said.
I have a couple of questions. How is your national organization here in Ottawa funded? Also, you talked about having access to the framework agreements. Explain briefly, if you would, how those framework agreements are arrived at, and - this may be along the same lines as Mr. Patry was saying - why can't you get inside to get access to those framework agreements?
Ms Genaille: First of all, on the funding, we are funded through Heritage Canada through the aboriginal women's program. We began lobbying the previous government to be recognized as a national aboriginal group. I think it took us a year and a half to finally convince them that the Métis women were an entity.
However, even in that portion of it you would think there is a dollar set aside for aboriginal women's program core funding for the three national aboriginal women's organizations. Even there, there is no parity on funding. We're probably $100,000 or more less funded than the other organizations, and it's not the fault of the native women or the Pauktuutit.
We asked the officials how they arrive at a funding formula. The answer we got was it was a purely political thing. So even there we don't have the equality. That's what I was saying to the previous speaker. As Métis women, it's not there.
As for the pathways program and the national framework, as you are aware, HRD revamped that program. They talked with the national organizations, the Métis National Council, the AFN, the ITC, and so on. We were invited to a meeting with the Métis National Council. In fact, Ms Henry and I both attended. That was about a year and a half ago, and we are still trying to get remuneration from them for our expenses for that meeting. There is still that sort of thing.
However, that is not as important as our voices in that agreement. It was signed. We were at a meeting here in Ottawa for a day and a half. But the final agreement was signed by the Métis National Council. We didn't have any say in it of what was... In fact, I think my signature as a Métis National Council of Women president was on the document and it was removed.
So perhaps departmental officials, or the Minister of HRD, or the Secretary of State may be able to answer your questions from the government point of view. I would certainly like to hear the answer as to why the signature block was removed and why in fact the Métis National Council of Women were not even having any input into the final agreement.
The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand.
Mr. Bertrand: Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.
You said in your presentation that the head start program was created by bureaucrats, with almost no involvement by aboriginal women. In your opinion, how would you change the program to make it more relevant to Métis women?
Ms Genaille: By including us, consulting us, and making it available to us.
We've asked for information. As a matter of fact, we didn't start getting information until well into the program; it had already started. This is some of the mentality of the officials in that department. We were saying: we are a national organization; why are you not sending us information? We hear it second-hand, or we hear it from other people in this town. They said, well, we sent it to Métis National Council.
.1620
When you want to send something to Ms Walker, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, do you send it to Ovide and say, oh, by the way, would you pass it to Janis? I don't think so.
So we're always trying to play catch-up with that kind of thing. We're asking how we as Canadians, as taxpayers, can become part of the policy-making, not when it's already set and the document's signed and you say, oh, by the way, Métis women, here is policy we've made for you; even though our government promised it was by aboriginals for aboriginals, it's been designed by our officials, they're handling it, and there it is. You may get in and you may not. This is what we want to change. Any help from the committee members would be appreciated.
Mr. Bertrand: Do you know of any groups that have applied for and received funding from the head start program? Are they mostly women's organizations? What kind of organizations have received funding so far?
Ms Genaille: As a matter of fact, we did meet in Ottawa - I believe it was in March - with head start officials. We asked for, and they promised us: a list of sites across the country for the head start programs; a list of the organizations that were going to be part of these programs; a list of the national steering committee, along with their qualifications in early childhood development; a list of the regional steering committees; how much money has been spent on the community out of the amount of dollars allocated to head start, how much is actually going to the communities, and how much has been paid consulting across the country with these steering committees.
As of today, leaving the office, l have heard nothing - absolutely nothing - no acknowledgement from the officials saying, yes, further to our meeting we will supply you with...
The Chairman: Thank you.
Did you wish to ask a question?
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: You have three minutes.
Mr. Finlay: It seems to me that a lot of the problems you are having, as you say here, with employment, recognition and so on, would have a good deal to do with education. Have you any comments about your hopes and aspirations in the educational field and how much influence, if any, you have?
Ms Genaille: Our problems at the Métis National Council of Women or the Métis women's organizations across the country are not for lack of education amongst us. I think it's more a case of the doors being closed. When you come up to the door to go in, it's slammed in your face.
In terms of maybe educating the departmental officials, maybe educating the people of Canada about who the Métis people are, yes, there's a lot of educating to be done. However, I think the opportunities are there. All we're asking is for a chance to access those opportunities and not have the doors closed before we even get there.
As a final wrap-up, one of the comments I heard that I thought would make for more understanding is that for the Métis people...a lot of the officials, whether federal or provincial, want aboriginal people to jump through hoops, while for the Métis people, they make us look for the hoops first and after a few years, if we find the hoops, then they say jump through it. So that kind of wraps up what we have to face.
Ms Henry: I'm sorry to interrupt, but further to that, I really do believe the issue here in terms of the lack of communication with the Métis National Council of Women is not the aspect of education. A significant number of us have graduated from university, have been in the workforce for some time, and have had significant exposure to various agencies. I think the big issue here is communication and, as Sheila indicated previously, the establishing of relationships. This is very critical in terms of success for the Métis National Council of Women and our relationships with the government. We have to start with the establishing of relationships and also with communication. Communication is critical.
.1625
The Chairman: Thank you. I will make a few comments and turn the floor over to you again for closing remarks.
The comment I want to make is to thank you very much. Your presence here confirms the wisdom of this committee to undergo this education process, because the information you have provided is new and it is very valuable. There had been hearsay about certain issues, but now we have it from you and we thank you for it.
I'll turn the floor over to you for closing remarks.
Ms Genaille: Thank you very much. Do you want to make some closing remarks before -
Ms Henry: No, I'm quite confident you can make them.
Ms Genaille: Again, I just want to thank you for inviting us here. We are, first and foremost, Canadians. Our history has been as nation-builders and we will continue to fight for that. We are taxpayers like every one of you sitting here. All we want is the same opportunities as mainstream Canadians have. This is what the Métis population wants.
We don't work against our communities. If you take a look at the aboriginal peoples survey of 1990 and look at the poverty our women face as single parents, you'll find women struggling. Take a look at any inner city in our regions, in the west, in Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton - pick a city - and you'll find women struggling. As I said earlier, politics is not number one on their agenda. Their agenda is survival for themselves and their children and ensuring that their children will have a better life than they have.
It's unfortunate that today the urban Métis population doesn't have the same opportunity to survive traditionally. I am not going to say how old I am, but I am from the hippie generation. My father was an urban Métis, but he also had an opportunity to hunt and to trap and to put food on the table for us. A lot of the women today don't have this opportunity. My younger brothers would snare rabbits. These kids don't have this opportunity. They are just into daily survival. We want to make it a better place for them.
As women, they are the caregivers, as Janice said. They are the nurturers, the teachers, the spiritual guides, the medicine women. And they just want an equal opportunity.
Thank you for listening.
Ms Henry: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We will suspend proceedings for three minutes. Thank you.
.1628
.1635
The Chairman: We'll resume proceedings.
First, I'd like to explain what we'll try to do in one hour. The steering committee met yesterday and have a recommendation for the committee on how we plan to handle Bill C-6. I will go over that very briefly so that everyone is aware, and if there are problems the staff can make us aware of it. Of course, this committee is autonomous. We're not to be influenced, but we want to listen to reason. We will then proceed to ask our witnesses to share with us information on the bill - whatever process you choose to follow to inform us - and before we leave we will have to allow time to either approve of the steering committee's recommendation or not. It was done late yesterday. It's in English only.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand, I apologize.
Mr. Bachand: It's quite all right. You should apologize to Mr. Bertrand as well.
Mr. Chairman: I apologize to Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Patry.
[English]
It's in English. The essence of the recommendation is such that we agree to a list of witnesses who would be witnessing through teleconference, and the list is on the sheet that you received. I will have three additional names to recommend to the committee. I will do this later.
The next step would be to advertise locally before the end of June in an economical fashion, through radio, paper, householder, whatever way is economical and does justice to informing the people of the fact that September 23 and 24 will be the two days for hearings, from noon until 8 p.m., and that anyone else who wishes to make a presentation can do so in writing, to be received by August 2. This would give the information out by the end of June and allow all of the month of July to make a written presentation.
Am I missing anything? I don't think so. The three names I'd like to recommend be added to the list is Mr. Keith Byram, a current chairperson of YMAC, and I would recommend that jointly with Mr. Bill Dunbar, the former chairperson of YMAC, and a representative of the Yukon territorial government... If there are other names that should be recommended for - oh good, thank you. I've been informed and can now share with you what YMAC is. It is the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee.
Before we leave, we'll decide on the three names to be added and then we'll have a vote on the recommendation of the committee. Do you foresee any problems with that debate? Can we clear that up in ten minutes at the end?
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Chairman, it was what the Government of the Yukon agreed to yesterday.
The Chairman: Okay, so that takes care of that one.
Mr. Duncan: That's one of the three, so you're just asking for two names, right?
The Chairman: Yes, jointly, so it's one presentation. Can we solve that now? Can we agree to those two joint presentations? Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you. Do you wish to proceed with...? Well, we'll do it at the end. But if we're to engage in a long debate on the recommendation of the steering committee, it should be done tomorrow, because we don't want to spend a full day on this. If we can manage to do it in five or ten minutes at the end, fine. If not, we'll find a solution.
Mr. Duncan: For clarification, you mentioned a date in August. What was that date again?
The Chairman: August 2.
Mr. Duncan: That's for what, now?
The Chairman: That's for the written submissions.
Mr. Duncan: Oh, written submissions by August -
The Chairman: It will be advertised before the end of June. It will give the whole month. How about postmarked by the second? We can live with that, can't we? Postmarked by the second, on the second or before. I think that gives enough time. All the written briefs and submissions will be put in a binder or a brick and presented to all members for our deliberations in September.
.1640
Now we have with us Mr. Hiram Beaubier, director general of the natural resources and environment branch. Mr. John Hodgkinson is the chief of the mining legislation and resource management division. Mr. Gilbert Groulx is a legal adviser in legal services.
I turn the floor over to you, and I ask you to share with us the experience you have and some guidance. Thank you.
Mr. Hiram Beaubier (Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your indulgence, I would take 20 minutes to go through some observations on the process we've been through and the bill to date, which I think might be useful for the committee to bear in mind when it's doing its deliberations and when it's hearing from other witnesses.
I would start by reminding the committee that this legislation fills a long-standing need for filling a void in environmental legislation in the Yukon. Currently there is no ability for the federal government to regulate land-based activities on mining claims in the Yukon.
This bill will provide the tools the government needs to meet its stewardship responsibilities and its land and other obligations under CEAA with respect to environmental management. The bill has been a long time in development with quite a chequered history, and a lot of work remains to be done in the implementation and full realization of this process.
The mandate given to the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee was to address the environmental issues associated with mining in the north. Excluded from that was dealing with any aspects of the rights, issuance or holding of a mineral title. That was neither within the committee's mandate nor the intent of the government at this time.
In terms of consultation and the distribution of information, we have a long, intensive, inclusive and comprehensive process behind us. It included a process that was somewhat unique within government, whereby we shared with stakeholders the actual legislation as it was being drafted.
We formed the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee. As it has been noted, it consists of the Government of the Yukon, Klondike Placer Miners Association, Yukon Chamber of Mines, Yukon Conservation Society, Council of Yukon First Nations and, of course, the federal government.
Once the committee had done its work, it formed a set of recommendations to government. Those recommendations were mailed out widely in the Yukon, and broad commentary was sought from the public at large.
Once the committee had concluded its work with respect to the legislation and the recommendations it would make to government on the precise wording of the legislation, there was a summary of the bill and the supporting regulations. These were also mailed out, and a series of public meetings were held across the Yukon. Meetings were held in Mayo, Dawson, Watson Lake and Whitehorse. All interested parties were invited to and included in those meetings and given an opportunity to consult and pass information on the legislation.
Once the bill was tabled in Parliament in December, the actual bill was sent out again to everyone in the Yukon who had an interest in this. So the actual legislation, as tabled, was then in their hands, along with the draft regulations. A series of meetings were set up, which continue today specifically on the regulations.
So we've met with all interested parties. We've met with the 14 first nations. We've met with Inuvialuit, who have an interest in the north Yukon. We've met with the Gwich'in from the Northwest Territories who have land based in the Yukon in the Peel River and Snake River systems.
We reached consensus at the YMAC committee generally, except on three areas. That was on the levels of fines, the taking and holding and use of security, and the threshold levels associated with class one activity. There was simply no closure among the committee members on those three issues; there were points of departure. Aside from that, we did reach consensus on the legislation.
.1645
Since that time, the Yukon Conservation Society has said it no longer supports the legislation as drafted. Its reason, with some foundation, was that it expected this legislation to be introduced and passed by 1994. We had fully intended to meet that target, but for a whole variety of reasons we didn't. Therefore, the Yukon Conservation Society doesn't feel obliged now to fully support the agreements that were reached. While there were contributions from a wide variety of organizations at the YMAC table, we never expected that to fully bind the supporting organizations.
I'd like to spend a minute talking with you about the relationship of this legislation to other legislation. The proposed mining legislation does not stand alone, nor will it operate alone. It operates in tandem with all other federal and territorial laws that apply in Yukon. The chief amongst those that I'd like to draw to your attention are the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Yukon Waters Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act from the federal side. Whatever happens within those mineral properties must comply and follow those other statutes. Indeed, the penalties and remedies associated with actions on mineral claims, as they relate to intrusions into those legislations, are available from those acts, as well as the proposed mining legislation.
With respect to the Yukon legislation, we have the Yukon Wildlife Act, Gasoline Handling Act and Fire Prevention Act. Where these areas are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Yukon government, they apply to operations on federal land. Mineral operators cannot operate under federal permits in violation of any of the territorial acts and ordinances.
The legislation is intended to fill the gap between currently unregulated land-based activities and those regulated by other laws and statutes. There's no intent here to have this act deal comprehensively with matters under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, chemicals or contaminants. We're not moving into areas of the Fisheries Act. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will apply to activities, screenings and assessments for operations that are opposed under the current legislation.
I would also like to talk to you about the relationship to claims and claims legislation. Land claims legislation prevails. The Umbrella Final Agreement and the settlement act associated with the Yukon first nations claims are superior legislation. To the extent that there's any conflict, the settlement legislation of Yukon will prevail.
In addition, the Umbrella Final Agreement and the final legislation associated with it contemplate changes to resource-based legislation to give force and effect to enabling legislation that will spell out the role and relationship of aboriginal people in resource decisions. For example, we are now advancing our obligations to prepare a development assessment act for Yukon, which will spell out the relationship of first nations with operations and the way they are assessed and evaluated for environmental screening. That will have an impact with respect to federal legislation currently on the books, and it may well have an impact on this legislation. It will have to be amended to give force and effect to those obligations under claims.
The legislation, however, does apply to everyone, including aboriginal people who are conducting mining operations, and it could also apply on Yukon first nations lands if Yukon first nations wish it to do so. We have written to all first nations asking whether they would like to develop their own specific legislation relating to the regulation of mining on their lands, or whether they would adopt this legislation.
.1650
Ultimately, the review and assessment process currently under CEAA, and yet to be under DAP, the development assessment process, will involve consultation with aboriginal first nations on all activities, except those contemplated under class one.
Briefly, I'll give an overview of the legislation. I would characterize it as normal legislation. It is not unique in most senses. It is found in jurisdictions across Canada and it would be recognized in the provinces as mining-based legislation, with many of the tenets of legislation found in the provinces. It contains authority to undertake work. That is described in the classes and the licensing schemes we're proposing.
It provides for inspections. It provides for enforcement and corrective actions by the inspectors. It provides a set of penalties and remedies for infractions. It identifies the options of taking, holding and using security. It provides for assignments of property rights, although those are conditional.
It has a system of appeals that are not unique or new. They are found in existing legislation in most jurisdictions. What is different is the introduction of standards. In support of class one activities, we have put a set of standards in the legislation that would apply to those and other activities, which all operators, regardless of class level, must meet. They form the permit terms and conditions outlined in legislation that class one activities must be obliged to meet. If they fail to do so, they're subject to prosecution and remedy.
The legislation is directed primarily at exploration. A latter set of regulations, yet to be developed, will deal with the production side of it - the authorization of production and the closure and abandonment of properties. By and large, we're dealing with the exploration phase. It deals with camps and activities such as trenching and stripping. It deals with vehicle weights and the number of roads travelled, etc., and pre-production work. I think it's important that we set this context.
In terms of the general standards, we address issues such as revegetation, where we require that all disturbed areas be left so successful regeneration by native plant species or others can occur. We address the issue of erosion control, where we require all operations to be cognizant of erosion and take whatever steps necessary in terms of contouring and stabilizing the soil, to avoid slumping and subsidence.
We address the issue of clean-up and tidiness of camps. We will not accept any abandonment of material whatsoever in Yukon. That addresses camp debris, equipment, fuel barrels, scrap metals, etc. We specify with respect to how matters of burial and incineration must occur. We're very cognizant of the responsibilities of cleaning up and leaving tidy sites.
As I mentioned earlier, we were unable to bring closure with respect to the appropriate threshold levels on class one activities. From our perspective, they represent the base level of exploration that the mineral industry undertakes in Yukon. They deal with camp size. Just to give you an idea of what level of activity we're talking about, if you have two persons in a camp for two and a half months or five persons in a camp for one month, that's the threshold for level one. If there's any more than that, you're into class two and a more comprehensive assessment.
Trenching is dealt with in much the same way. Hand trenching can be done under class one and left open, although it must be shaped and contoured. Any machine trenching must be backfilled and contoured. Clearing is allowed in class one but it's very small and normally for helicopter pad support. The clearing necessary for helicopter support is less than 0.3% of the claim block size.
.1655
I think we have modest, but adequate from an exploration point of view, requirements for fuel - 5,000 litres in individual drums. This is 25 drums. This is enough to keep a helicopter flying for nine days at five hours a day or twenty-four days at two hours a day. So it shows you the kind of scales we're talking about.
The standing tank is 2,000 litres, about two of the normal fuel tanks you'd find at a normal residence. It is about two of those rounded tanks. This is about 2,000.
So we're not talking about a lot of fuel. That is comprehensive fuel inventory. It deals with drilling. It deals with transportation. It deals with flying. It deals with pumping and things like that. So you can see those operations are actually pretty small.
For site preparation and clearing out, it is about the size of a football field. We have restricted off-road vehicle use to, I think, 35 kilopascals. The average person walking across the terrain exerts 12.6 kilopascals. So this gives you some idea of the scale of operation we're talking about under class one and those that are then exempted from notification.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage you to recall that we see this legislation as the badly needed filling of a gap within the environmental management of the Yukon. We encourage you to look at this in the context of other federal laws and other remedies for more serious intrusions into the Yukon involving fish, water or chemicals.
At that time, if there is an incident that flows from an operation authorized under this legislation, the Crown will make a choice as to which legislation it chooses to pursue remedies under. It might be under the Fisheries Act, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or both, or under the Yukon Waters Act, all of which have substantive penalties associated with them.
The process we've followed to consult and develop the legislation has been exhaustive, comprehensive and inclusive. We are still doing that with the current regulations. The standards will apply and are enforceable against all levels, particularly class one, and this legislation is subordinate to the Yukon claim settlement legislation and enabling legislation flowing from that.
I would just bring to the committee's attention that as a commitment to Yukon people and the YMAC committee members, we made an obligation to review the legislation and the regulations with respect to how well they're working within a two-year period. So that is on the record and we fully intend to do it.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks.
The Chairman: Thank you.
I'll try to be innovative by mixing an Standing Order 31 with the question period. Because we have a vote at 5:45 p.m. and the bells will start at 5:30 p.m., I'd like to suggest to this committee that each member take one minute to ask a question. At the end we'll ask our witnesses to respond to all the questions. We have until September to contact any of these gentlemen or anyone else if we need more information. The information is available to us. If you don't agree with this, just let me know. You won't offend me.
Okay. It is too late to disagree now.
We'll start with Mr. Bachand. Please ask one-minute questions and at the end you can back it all up. It is a bit of a challenge but I know -
Mr. Beaubier: I'm not clear, Mr. Chairman. Do you wish for me to respond to each question put?
The Chairman: Please respond at the end.
Mr. Beaubier: Fine.
The Chairman: This way we can meet our schedule.
Mr. Beaubier: Fine.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand: I have a question about the four activity levels. We know the bill is on the table, but there are also supporting regulations. Could we act as legislators on the regulations right now, because this is where the activity levels are determined?
.1700
This is part of the regulations. We established four classes, but you have to refer to regulations to find them. At present, if I disagree on activity level 3, which I would like to be tighter, will I be able to do something during the bill adoption process?
As a backdrop, there is also the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Can the processes provided for in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be triggered or do current regulations prevent that Act from being triggered?
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): We have time to get back to you anyway.
On your class one, we basically talk about a mom and pop operation. Are we talking small-vein mining here? Was this the main reason why class one was so controversial up in the Yukon?
The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: I have two questions. Why did the bill take so long to get here, seeing as how Bills C-33 and C-34 did go through Parliament in 1994 and received royal assent?
Secondly, has the department received a positive response from any of the 14 bands in the Yukon in terms of adopting the provisions of this act for their lands?
The Chairman: Before I ask Ms McLaughlin to ask her question, I'd like to mention she will be part of this committee.
We welcome your knowledge of the situation and we will depend on you for some guidance. You may ask your question.
Ms McLaughlin (Yukon): Actually, I don't have many questions.
I've had many meetings on this in many places and I've had many discussions on this, so I think I'll leave it to others.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Patry.
Mr. Patry: I just have one question. You said this legislation applies to all Yukoners but it could apply also to the first nations of the Yukon who would like to apply it. What about the first nations who would like to do some exploration and don't want to be part of Bill C-6? What type of rules will apply to them?
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: I just want to ask Mr. Beaubier what the third point of disagreement was. I got two of them. I didn't get the third one.
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): It will take some time to get an answer on this question. I understand you've had meetings with the Yukon first nations and also you mentioned the act's regulations will apply to first nations if they choose to have it apply. But you also indicate they may propose their own legislation.
I was just wondering if you recognize Indian government. How is this legislation going to be enforced? To be recognized as an Indian self-government legislation, what kind of legislation will go through? For instance, here we have Parliament that makes legislation. We go through a process in committee hearings and everything else.
I was wondering what kind of consultations you have had. What forms of legislation and which people are involved? Are there elected representatives involved, first nations involved or tribal councils involved?
I raise those kinds of questions with you and I would be interested to hear from you.
The Chairman: Thank you. If you can address these issues in 10 minutes or less, we may have time for another round.
Mr. Beaubier: All right.
The Chairman: If the same question is asked in the next round, it's because you didn't answer it properly the first time.
.1705
Mr. Beaubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the regulations, I have a handout both in French and English of the regulatory process and how it works within government in its relationship to this committee and others.
The short answer is that the regulatory process is housed elsewhere in government and is passed to the department, to the minister and Governor in Council. With respect to concerns, I think it would be quite appropriate, if the committee had concerns, to flag those in part of its report and then they would be taken into account with respect to the development of the particular regulations. There is a standing joint committee between the House of Commons and the Senate that reviews regulations, but that, I admit, is after the fact.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does apply now and will apply once the legislation is passed and it has the ability to... All activities that are undertaken, where government has a decision-making role to make, must be screened under the CEAA act and must be assessed. So if it is felt that more time is necessary to do that screening and assessment, it is picked out of the mining legislation and the process is put in under the CEAA legislation. Once that final assessment is made with respect to whether this has a significant environmental impact or not, and the mitigating conditions that would apply to it, it would go back into the regulatory process and the clock would start ticking again. The regulatory process must consider the observations of CEAA. So those two work very closely together and, indeed, the CEAA legislation dominates in terms of the time lines.
The class one activities were really scoped out to allow grassroots exploration, so that people who were going out doing prospecting and exploration do not have to come through a vigorous and rigorous and onerous government process, and the threshold levels were determined on those kinds of levels that were typical of an exploration activity and yet, we felt - and the majority of the members of the committee felt - did not have a potential for significant environmental impact.
There is a provision in the legislation to allow people who want to high-grade a vein of ore to do so without having to go to a production licence. As a minimum, they would have to have a class three or a class four activity, depending on what they were proposing, but it was specifically designed.... Often in the Yukon you'll get individuals go out, find a vein of quartz with gold-bearing metals in it and they'll simply follow that vein of quartz, harvest it, take it out, produce it, if you will, and then move on to the next. We felt forcing those kinds of operations into a production licence was too onerous. Therefore, there is provision for that in the bill.
Why did the bill take so long? The committee actually started with the task of recommending changes to the former Northern Inland Waters Act, which was subsequently split into the Yukon Waters Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act as its first set of responsibilities. Then it dealt with this issue with respect to how the environmental management of minerals properties would be properly regulated. We had our reports ready. They got caught up in various constitutional issues that government chose to take higher priority in, and we were set aside because of those constitutional issues. We then got approval of the former government to actually start drafting the legislation and started to work on it. There was a change in government. All of that work had to be resubmitted to government and reconfirmation received from government for legislative drafting. That unfortunate series of consequences has led to significant delays. When we take a look at the actual approvals given and the time taken to draft the legislation, it really hasn't been all that long, but it's been backed up by those events.
With respect to applying to first nations, I should be clear that given the settlement of land claims, there are lands that go in title to aboriginal peoples, first nations, both the surface and the subsurfaces, full title to aboriginal people. There are other classes of land that grant title interest to aboriginal people, but not subsurface interest. Then, of course, there's a whole variety of different benefits and obligations that speak beyond land.
.1710
Surrounding that first nations settlement is federal land, so if anyone - whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal - wishes to undertake a mineral development on federal land, it is tied into this legislation.
If the aboriginal people wish to develop their own resource management regime on lands for which they have both the surface and the subsurface titles, they may do so under the self-government agreements - and I'm answering Dr. Patry and Mr. Harper's questions at the same time here - that saw the government negotiating not only final claims with 14 first nations but self-government agreements.
The powers of self-government allow the first nations to draw down on those powers and authorities that currently rest with the federal government and the territorial government.
I don't know which ones are going to draw down on the resource-based legislation. Some have indicated they wish to do so, and indeed we know that some are working on that now. The process of finalizing this involves the government and the first nation concluding the negotiations on the specifics of the claim settlement for one of the 14 first nations, along with the self-government agreement. All of that has to be wrapped up into legislation that will be introduced to the House and go through the normal parliamentary process, with respect to the content of the final settlement and the content of the self-government agreement. That would be the vehicle through which they would make a determination as to what powers and relationships they would have.
There are three areas of disagreement we never got closure on. The first is the levels of fines, with industry thinking they were too high and the conservation society thinking they were too low. The second is security, with the conservation society and the Council of Yukon Indians generally, as well, believing that each and every operation should have security taken and held, and the industry saying that in some instances no security should ever be held. That was the consistent position on placer mining. It could not see why you would want to take security on placer operations.
The third area was on the threshold levels, and what levels of activity constitute class one activities. Again, that split was predictable, with the industry thinking those thresholds were too high, and aboriginal people and the conservation society thinking the thresholds were too low.
Mr. Chairman, that will be all.
The Chairman: You did really well. I want to apologize for the way I'm proceeding. I know it's not fair, but you're putting out enough information to get us started in our education process. We are becoming familiar with this bill as we speak, and it's very valuable.
We'll do another quick round with a minute each.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: I asked if you had received a response from any of the 14 bands.
Mr. Beaubier: You told me I'd get called up.
Mr. Duncan: I don't believe you answered.
Mr. Beaubier: I did not answer.
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: Just tell me briefly who makes the decision whether CEAA should dominate, whether this act is sufficient, or whether that's where the development is going to be legislated or regulated.
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
Mr. Patry: I just have a little question about the offence and penalties. You talked about Bill C-6 with DIAND. You also have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Yukon Waters Act, the Fisheries Act, and the territorial Wildlife Act. That involves many inspectors. How is it going to work? They will all be putting their noses into this.
.1715
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: The question raised is in regard to whether or not the first nations want to develop their own legislation. As for these areas you just mentioned, the three areas that you didn't get closure on, if they were to develop legislation in those areas and come up with legislation that would satisfy their needs or with which they would feel comfortable, would they be allowed to do so under this legislation without even having consent from the other interested parties...?
The Chairman: Mr. Beaubier, the floor is yours for about seven minutes. This will probably be the last round.
Mr. Beaubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies for missing the question.
We've had no specific indication from any first nations that they would be adopting the proposed federal legislation. We've had expressions of interest. We've had expressions of support from some of the first nations. But we've also had very clear indications from other first nations that they fully intend to develop their own legislation. In those instances, we will be trying to encourage the first nations to work closely with this legislation and to harmonize so that there's not a broad chequerboard of different regulatory regimes that operate in the Yukon to the detriment of everyone.
With respect to who makes the decision on the relationship between CEAA and mining, it was already determined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that any decisions, any federal land, any federal money or any decision points flowing from the federal government is subject to CEAA. Because the federal government is going to be making decisions on class two, three, four and productions by virtue of the definition from CEAA, it is subject to CEAA. So it means that we have to do the screening under CEAA and the prescriptive regulatory work under the mining legislation.
That's the way it currently works within the Yukon now. If, for example, we have a forestry operation, that operation must be assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Once it's been determined that indeed there are tools of mitigations and processes of mitigation, then it's authorized under the territorial timber regulations. It would be the same on the mining properties as well.
In terms of inspectors and coordination, we already have in place fairly effective coordination between different federal departments, particularly the Department of Fisheries and ourselves and the Department of the Environment and ourselves. We've spelled out the protocols with respect to where we are going to focus our inspectors. We do cooperative inspections, particularly in the area of placer mining. Indeed, we do the inspections on behalf of the Department of Fisheries.
There probably is some room for improvement with respect to tighter inspections. We have a number of inspectors ourselves. Some are based on inspecting lands, properties. We have placer inspectors, both under the mining...and then we have water inspectors. So we're looking at pulling together a much more efficient and effective inspection service to make it easier for the operator and also to save money.
With respect to the first nations and their legislative or regulatory authorities, they could only introduce and propose legislation that dealt with their own land. They could not introduce, which we would be pleased to receive, information as to how we would bring closure to those three issues. But they could not automatically influence this legislation on their own. Wherever they have their own land that includes surface and subsurface, then whatever regulatory and legislative system they put into place would apply there and only there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thanks again. As I said, the dialogue has begun. We have until at least September 23 and 24, when our public hearings will be held.
Members, we have experts available to us. For any information you need, I'm sure they would be pleased to help.
Mr. Beaubier: Absolutely, sir.
.1720
The Chairman: I have a question, though. Where did you learn to be so precise and to the point in such a short time? Do you work for the government?
Mr. Beaumier: Yes, I work for the government.
The Chairman: I want to thank you very much for the information, all of you. We appreciate this. We will continue to work together. Thank you.
Mr. Beaumier: We appreciate that. I have material on the regulatory process that I would give to the committee for passing out.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Committee members, you have a copy of the recommendations of your steering committee, from the meeting held yesterday. The addition was Keith Byram and Bill Dunbar as witnesses.
Mr. Duncan: I move that the committee accepts all those recommendations.
The Chairman: Thank you. Subject to coming back to you with the budget for advertising and things, we can -
Mr. Duncan: Subject to the chair approving the budget.
The Chairman: Okay. You know I'm not going to spend too much money. You know me.
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
Mr. Finlay: You don't spend any money.
The Chairman: Audrey, for your information, I told this committee - we had a discussion on coffee. I said we don't have time to discuss coffee; when somebody puts in a motion and we vote majority we'll have coffee. Nobody presented it yet.
We have a motion to accept the recommendation subject to the chair approving the budget. Is there any debate on this, any discussion? Did you have a question?
Ms McLaughlin: I would really like to make a very strong point, which I suspect most people are aware of, that there has been a series of meetings in the Yukon, whether it's on licences for recreational boats, a health forum, CPP or whatever that comes from the federal government, and frankly, the advertising has been so cost-saving that it's caused a lot of backlash in the Yukon, because really it has not been substantive enough for all of the people to be informed.
While I appreciate the need to restrict the budget, I would really make a strong plea that it be full advertising. There is a Dawson paper, for example, and it should be in the Dawson paper. There are a number of local resources. It's not vastly expensive, but I think it would certainly facilitate the work of the committee and the cooperation from others if there was that full advertising. I really urge you to do that, particularly in the print media.
The Chairman: Thank you. I will consult with you, because you're so familiar with the area.
Ms McLaughlin: There are some local places I think I could mention, even little newsletters that would be good.
The Chairman: Thank you. Are we ready for the vote?
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The next meeting is on Thursday at 11 a.m., our regular time.