[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 17, 1996
.1110 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Even though we don't have a quorum, we will begin the meeting to share information on the quartz mining bill.
I can start by saying that this summer I took a trip to the Yukon as an individual. I made it very clear that I wasn't there as the chair of the committee, but rather I was there as an individual to be educated so we could chair the meetings properly. I met with a number of groups who will be presenting.
All areas of concern should have been addressed in regulations, and they are now aware of the difference between the bill and the regulations. I was left with the impression that I can't identify one group that wants this bill amended. Having talked to all the groups, I explained to them that if one opens it up, then everybody else will want to open it up.
This is an agreement that was established, that was created by them, by the people of the Yukon, with all the players involved. It took them a long time.
There's a degree of dissatisfaction in every group, and when everybody is not completely happy this tells me that it's good legislation. But it's their product. Personally, I think it's very delicate for us to make amendments that would probably change the whole package, but that will be up to the committee to decide.
I'll ask our researcher to explain to you a few numbers he was giving to me that are part of the binders. You've noticed the binders; they've been sent to your offices. These binders are the work of this committee. It will be kept updated.
Before we go on, I would like to thank the researchers for the wonderful work they did on these binders. It will be a great tool.
Could you repeat to the committee the numbers you gave us?
Mr. David Johansen (Committee Researcher): Yes.
The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting.
We do have a quorum now, so we are constituted as a meeting.
Carry on.
Mr. Johansen: There were a total of 37 submissions to the committee, of which 26 were in favour of the bill as it is and 11 expressed concerns. Nine of the 11 groups who expressed concerns had been invited to appear before the committee. The other two missed the cut-off date, but in any event they've still been included in the binder. So it will be up to the committee as to whether or not they choose to hear the Yukon Outfitters Association and the Teetlit Lake Gwich'in Council, both of which have prepared submissions.
The Teetlit Gwich'in one basically was one paragraph in which they indicated that the legislation is invalid because the government didn't consult with them. The Yukon Outfitters indicated a number of concerns in their submission, primarily concerning the different levels and the fines and enforcement, and those kinds of things.
The Chairman: Which are regulations.
Mr. Johansen: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
If you will look at your proposed agenda for Monday and Tuesday of next week, if you see anything to which you would like to recommend changes, now is the time. I will be asking you, and I'm asking you at this point, if you wish to add, at 12:20 p.m. and at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, the Yukon Outfitters and the Teetlit. If I have a motion to recommend that they be invited to present, then we can deal with that very rapidly.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): Mr. Chair, is 12:20 p.m our time or Yukon time?
The Clerk of the Committee: It is Whitehorse time on the left and Ottawa time on the right.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, but we're talking about adding here.
The Chairman: I was looking to the left. I'll look to the right. We're talking about 3:20 p.m. and 4 p.m.
Do I have a motion to invite these two groups?
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): I so move.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): I second the motion.
The Chairman: Do we need to debate this? No?
Motion agreed to
.1115
The Chairman: The whip has indicated that efforts will be made to constitute this committee before the hearings start, but we have been advised that whether it's done or not, this committee continues the work. There was a question as to the legality of this committee doing work, even having this meeting. I said let's have it anyway; if it's not legal we'll talk anyway.
I understand we can do it legally. Everything is fine.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Why would we be illegal?
The Chairman: There's something about constituting committees, having election of a chair and all this stuff. I didn't want to surprise you on Tuesday by saying we set up all the cameras and the teleconferencing and we can't do this. So it's legal.
Does anyone have any questions or any concerns about the teleconferencing, the witnesses, or anything on what is going to be happening next Monday and Tuesday? Do you wish to stay after the last witness and close it as a discussion and make an attempt to pass it? If we find there is a need for amendment and it will take longer, then at that point we can defer. Do you agree that after the last witness we should make an attempt to finalize this bill?
Mr. Murphy: Yes.
The Chairman: Okay. This means we could be staying until about 6 p.m., more or less.
Mr. Stinson: What happens with the last witnesses? Are they on a schedule with the ones we've added in here at 4:40 p.m.?
The Chairman: They're up until 4:40.
Mr. Stinson: Is that the cut-off, or do they talk past that?
The Chairman: That's the cut-off for them.
Mr. Stinson: So they don't talk past 4:40.
The Chairman: That's right, and I will stick to the timing, within reason. They can go shorter, but not longer.
Mr. Stinson: If we get longer than that.... I won't agree to be sitting here at 11 or 12 p.m., trying to get this thing through.
Mr. Anawak: But remember it's their area in which we're making law.
Mr. Stinson: That's right. I agree with Mr. Anawak there, because of that exact argument. I'd hate to be putting ourselves to a time constraint here as to when we have to have this finalized.
The Chairman: Are you talking about the debate afterwards or about the presentations?
Mr. Stinson: The presentations. I have a bit of concern about telling people whose lives we will now be encroaching on, so to speak, that they have only so many minutes to put their cause forward one way or the other. If they still have legitimate concerns that should be addressed I think we should allow at least a bit of leeway so these concerns can be addressed by these people.
The Chairman: I will need direction from the committee, then. I'd rather do it today than on Monday or Tuesday. Personally, I like to stick to timing. If this committee wants me to go beyond, it's the committee that runs it, not me.
Mr. Murphy: What have we told the presenters?
The Chairman: We have told them. They know to the minute. They know if they don't want to be asked questions, they talk for the full time. They know.
Mr. Anawak: That's why I said ``within reason''. I don't know about you guys, but I've been on the other side, making a presentation, and it's hard when you have to stick to so tight a framework. That's why I say ``within reason''. We're elected to make laws, and here we are, making laws for the people who are coming to us, and we say, ``It's your land, but we're going to decide you have exactly twenty minutes and then you go''. That's....
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that we might also have questions we won't be allowed to ask because of time constraints. Let's look at this from both sides and get to a reasonable conclusion here. I believe Mr. Anawak is right, and I believe it works from both points of view. If we are constricted as to time when we ask questions we feel are pertinent to making a decision here and we're not allowed to ask questions because of time allocation.... I just couldn't agree to that.
.1120
The Chairman: I can tell you you won't be allowed if the majority of the committee members say yes. I don't use a gavel to overrule the committee. The committee runs it here. But if we're going to fall behind on our schedule, it will be the committee that decides we fall behind, it won't be me. That's all I'm saying.
We know the problem will not be with the presentations. We know the problem will be with the 15-minute speeches we make every time we ask a simple question. So we are the problem, not the presenters.
Just be prepared. When we go over schedule, I'll just ask the question. Vote quickly. If you want to go beyond, go. If you say no.... Okay? Fair enough?
Mr. Stinson: Yes.
The Chairman: Is there anything else? Are we satisfied with the list for presenting? Can we say everyone who asked to present is presenting? Have others asked, representing groups?
The Clerk: There was a question of an Indian band that telephoned in the summer and said they would like to appear. We issued an invitation to them to send in a résumé of what it was they wanted to address in the bill and we haven't heard from them since. They might come at the last minute. I'm sure we could accommodate them at the end.
The Chairman: If the committee decides.
So we are going into this knowing everyone has been given an opportunity. We did advertise in newspapers, and it was well advertised, because people knew when I went there. Everyone had an opportunity to submit a written submission. I don't think we could have done more to prepare for it.
The schedule for clause-by-clause.... We're going to attempt to do it right after the last presenter.
Unless any member has anything else to add, my agenda's complete. Anything else for the good of the club?
Mr. Stinson: I might mention I was up in the Yukon too this summer. I spent three weeks up there and I came to the same conclusion you have come to, Mr. Chair, that overall, basically, as long as there are no hard-and-fast amendments here it's pretty well acceptable to most of the people I've talked to.
The Chairman: They understand if we open it to amendments we're more or less interfering with an agreement that was reached amongst them, and if one opens for amendment, everybody else says ``we all gave up something for that, so if you're getting it back, we're going to take it back'', which is reasonable, because everybody gave something. I think if we understand that....
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Stinson: I agree. I've been told in no uncertain terms if we open this up to amendments we'll be flooded. It'll just be one counteracting the other.
The Chairman: Anything else?
The Clerk: Did you want to mention the other binder?
The Chairman: The members are all familiar with the binder we asked to have established. This will be an ongoing live document, so anyone joining the committee in 15 years should be able, if they continue this practice, to go back to the library of work done by this committee. For too long we've heard what we presented two years ago or five years ago and we're always looking for documents. Everything we do will be part of this document.
The meeting is adjourned.