EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 11, 1995

.1600

[English]

The Chairman: While we wait for our witnesses, we have five groups this afternoon, beginning with the Inuvialuit Game Council and followed by the Minister of Renewable Resources for the NWT government, Ecology North, Environment Canada, and the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board.

Let me briefly read to you this two-page paper by Dave Talbot on arsenic pollution, which was delivered to you during the break. He's a local resident who says that for 16 years he has fished the mouth of Baker Creek where it enters Great Slave Lake in Yellowknife Back Bay and caught many fish. It was there that he taught his three children to fish and the values of protecting our environment. Today the fish in Baker Creek are gone, all poisoned by pollutants from Royal Oak Mine. He has attempted to warn the public and government. He goes on along that line and then he puts forward the facts he discovered from the files.

The clerk will distribute a copy of this paper to those of you who are interested, in the hope you will find it useful. There are only four copies and the clerk will produce additional copies.

Will representatives of the Inuvialuit Game Council please take their chairs? We have a lot of work to do and we have to move swiftly. We have more witnesses than we had anticipated.

In order to accommodate everybody, we will allocate half an hour to each group. We welcome you to our committee and ask you to introduce yourselves.

.1605

Duane Smith is the vice-chair of the Inuvialuit Game Council. Herbert Felix is from Tuktoyaktuk, so he has come a long way. Tom Beck is the chair of the Environmental Impact Screening Committee, and Norman Snow is the executive director.

In order to get the most out of this, please summarize your presentation in five minutes. Then you will perhaps get more material on record by way of questions and answers.

Mr. Duane Smith (Vice-Chair, Inuvialuit Game Council): We would like to thank you for this opportunity to sit here and discuss our concerns with you.

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which primarily represents the private interests of Inuvialuit, is unable to have representation here today. That's another body of our Inuvialuit group. It fully endorses the presentation I'm about to make to you.

Before I get to the topics, I would like to briefly tell you about the Inuvialuit Game Council, the co-management committees and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. More detail has been provided in the package you have.

After some 14 years of negotiations, COPE - the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, which represented the Inuit people of the western Arctic - the Inuvialuit, and the federal government signed the Inuvialuit Final Agreement on June 5, 1984. There are provisions in the agreement to enable the Inuvialuit to participate and be meaningful partners in all decision-making processes dealing with the management of the environment and its wildlife.

In anticipation of the eventual signing of the IFA, the Inuvialuit Game Council was established in 1983. It has 100% Inuvialuit membership, which includes a chairman and two representatives from each of the six hunters' and trappers' committees from the communities included in the IFA of Aklavik, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour and Holman Island.

The IGC is charged with the responsibility of representing the collective Inuvialuit interests in all matters relating to wildlife, effectively the environment. The importance of our relationship to the land and the resources it provides is very great. It is this relationship that establishes our cultural identity, our lifestyle and our sense of well-being. Although you have heard a similar sentiment expressed by other groups of indigenous peoples, its significance cannot be overstated. We have always considered ourselves to be wise stewards of the land and its resources. By way of our land rights agreement we have firmly entrenched our commitment to the environment through rational management of wildlife and the principle of sustainable development.

The IFA enabled a system of joint management to be established, which we consider to be a world-class example of integrated resource management. This co-management process, as such systems are now becoming universally known, has been presented by the Inuvialuit, often by invitation, at both national and international meetings.

The basic elements of the process are five co-management bodies established pursuant to the IFA. Each body is comprised of 50% Inuvialuit and 50% government members, with a mutually agreed upon chair. This composition guarantees the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in the process. In addition, specific traditional ecological knowledge studies are undertaken from time to time. All these co-management bodies include extensive community consultation elements in their operating procedures.

.1610

There are two wildlife management advisory councils, one for the Yukon north slope and the other for the NWT, because the Inuvialuit settlement region straddles both territorial jurisdictions. These councils deal primarily with birds and terrestrial wildlife. There's also a fisheries joint-management committee, which deals primarily with fish and marine mammals.

The Environmental Impact Screening Committee and the Environmental Impact Review Board collectively make up the screening and review process for the settlement region. I shall elaborate on these two processes later.

In addition to these structural elements of our co-management process, our approach to sustainable development and environmental management includes a full range of wildlife research programs and the establishment of protected areas. There are at present two national parks in our region, with a third in the advanced planning stage. There's also a territorial park. These parks and other protected areas such as bird sanctuaries occupy some 60,000 square kilometres of our settlement region, which is itself approximately one million square kilometres. As a point of reference, this is more or less the size of the province of Quebec. Protected areas occupy some 6% of the region, which translates to 18% of the land mass. This is well above the international target of 12% and is just one of the ways we are addressing the question of biodiversity.

Since the signing of the IFA in 1984, the Inuvialuit and many government agencies have expended considerable effort to make this co-management process work. The evidence of this is the volume of work carried out over the past decade and what has been achieved as a result.

By way of example only, I will cite the negotiation of an international polar bear management agreement with the Inupiat of Alaska. This is the first time a wildlife management agreement was initiated and concluded by aboriginal user groups in two countries. It is respected and supported by the governments of those two countries. An agreement modelled on this is currently being negotiated by the United States and Russia.

A beluga management plan has been developed for the region. This is also being considered as a model for a similar international management scheme to be applied to the beluga shared by the Alaskans and the Inuvialuit.

Two other major co-management undertakings have been the development of a regional land use plan in conjunction with the Gwich'in and the development of conservation plans by each of the six communities within the settlement region. These individual plans were developed pursuant to an umbrella conservation plan. There is a separate draft plan for the Yukon north slope. They are all important components of wildlife management and sustainable development in the settlement region. These community plans also have a vital role in the environmental evaluation of all development projects in the region by way of their screening and review processes.

Over a decade ago our final agreement provided for what has become fashionably known as sustainable development. We did this by creating the co-management mechanisms previously described, in keeping with our primary goals of preserving our cultural identity and values, enabling the Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participates in the northern and national economy and society while at the same time protecting Arctic wildlife, environment and biological productivity.

The environmental screening and review process plays a vital role in achieving these goals. It is a two-stage process implemented by the Environmental Impact Screening Committee and the Environmental Impact Review Board. It is important to emphasize that the screening committee and the review board are set up as non-partisan organizations. Members are expected to contribute as experienced individuals and not as representatives of their appointing body. This approach has worked well, with each member bringing his or her own special expertise to the process.

.1615

It is important to understand that as per section 11.(31) of the IFA, no licence or approval shall be issued permitting any development to proceed without screening and, if necessary, review. The screening committee makes the initial assessment, which includes recommendations from the HTCs, whether proposed developments are likely to have a negative environmental impact on wildlife or Inuvialuit harvesting within the settlement region.

The Chairman: Could you also say something about the CEPA review that brings this committee to this city?

Mr. Smith: I'm trying to point out here that if there are going to be any amendments to CEPA, we have to be fully consulted in a meaningful way.

The Chairman: That is what we're doing here today. We have invited you to appear to comment on CEPA.

Mr. Smith: I would just like to finish here.

If the screening committee decides there may be significant negative impact, the project can be referred to a competent review body such as the review board for a more detailed environmental impact assessment and review. A review board decides and advises the appropriate minister whether a project should proceed and, if so, under what specific terms and conditions. This must include wildlife compensation, mitigation and remedial measures. If need be, the review board may recommend that a project be subject to further assessment and review.

Over the years our screening and review process has proven that it can clearly and efficiently handle a great variety of proposals originating from federal and territorial agencies, universities, industry and individuals. The vast majority of projects submitted for screening are processed within 60 days or less from the date of receipt, while public reviews have been completed in 6 to 20 weeks. This is particularly impressive considering the processing is conducted by bodies that are not full-time committees.

Of course, not all projects submitted to the screening process are subsequently referred for review. Since its establishment in 1986 the screening committee has examined some 200 project descriptions. Of those, 10 were referred for further assessment and review, but after voluntary withdrawals by the proponents only 3 proposals advanced to public review by the review board.

The IFA process has the legislated advantage of requiring equal representation by Inuvialuit and government, and is especially tailored to meet the needs of our people and our land. As a matter of process, all development proponents are encouraged to consult with the affected communities in order to identify local concerns and potential conflicts. Indeed, during examination of project descriptions, the screening committee and review board place much emphasis on the comments of the local people. This process has ensured that we who depend on sustainable development in the region for our livelihood and future are intimately involved with each step, from the initial consultation to the final decision, as required under the provisions of the IFA.

What I've done thus far is outline for you the rationale, development, process and performance of our integrated resource management process. We are proud of it and hope that government is too. It is generally agreed that the process has worked well.

We have used our implementation funding to build up the internal capacity to deal with, amongst other issues, our approach to sustainable development. Our co-management process is a primary vehicle for proactively dealing with CEPA regulatory procedures and those pursuant to other environmental legislation as they relate to our settlement region. We feel it can provide sound community-based input to the overall process of environmental protection and orderly development.

In view of the fact that the process is workable and has a track record spanning a decade, we are somewhat disturbed that new environmental legislation such as CEA and CEPA has been developed seemingly in isolation from, and certainly without adequate consultation with, claimant groups. We see no evidence that this or other proposed legislation incorporates the provisions of land rights legislation in any meaningful way.

.1620

We were even more disturbed to learn only recently that Canada is considering a proposal to amend the IFA to accommodate the provisions of the CEAA. There are indications that a similar proposal is being developed to accommodate CEPA.

I must remind you that our final agreement contains a paramountcy clause, as indeed do those of other claimant groups. Simply stated, this clause specifies that the land rights legislation takes precedence over all other legislation to the extent of any inconsistency. The promulgation of new legislation that fails to take this principle into account is at best a missed opportunity, and at worst an abrogation of the fiduciary responsibility of Canada to the claimant groups.

It is difficult to understand why co-management processes - in which government has a 50% interest - that have been developed pursuant to constitutionally protected land claims legislation are ignored in the development of new federal legislation. We therefore urge this committee to reverse this trend with respect to CEPA and, to the extent it can, with respect to other federal initiatives that are or may be in conflict.

I would like to assure you we are not proposing any duplication of effort and its associated cost increase. In fact, we're proposing the very opposite. Surely it is possible to develop or amend legislation in such a way that it takes full advantage of existing working procedures without compromising the goals of Canada or claimant groups. In the case of maintaining a healthy environment, they should be the same anyway. To do otherwise will inevitably lead to the creation of confusion and the adoption of adversarial or confrontational postures. There will likely be lengthy and costly litigative action and a decrease in the effectiveness and efficiency of existing processes. Ultimately the burden will be borne by the Canadian taxpayer. If this proves to be the result of the current harmonization initiative, it will create anything but harmony.

Very recently there has been an example of the benefits that can accrue to society when Canada does take full advantage of co-management procedures. A few weeks ago the U.S. and Canada initialled a protocol to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act which, amongst other things, will lead to the decriminalization of the spring harvest of migratory waterfowl. This is a matter that has involved many people for many years. The utilization of co-management procedures enabled an agreement to be reached between the two countries in a mere week.

In the course of this presentation I have touched upon some of the issues raised in the presentations to this committee by ITC, and I believe by other aboriginal organizations as well. In the interest of expediency I have not repeated those concerns, views and recommendations, but to the extent we have been involved in their development I would like you to know we fully support them.

Having explained our co-management process and suggested why it and others under development should be fully accommodated by other federal legislation, I am now in the unfortunate position of bringing to your attention the fact that as of a month ago, our own process has been rendered inoperative. This sad state of affairs is the result of what has been characterized as a funding dispute. In its broadest sense this is true, but the dispute is not because more money is being requested, nor is the actual sum being disputed. It is instead a dispute about the process of transferring money for the exclusive purpose of enabling Inuvialuit members of four co-management bodies to attend meetings of those bodies.

The Inuvialuit are working diligently with both levels of government to resolve this issue and hope that such resolution is imminent. However, until this matter is satisfactorily resolved, all industrial activity, as well as some research proposed for the settlement region, cannot legally proceed.

We did not expect to be in this situation almost 11 years after the signing of the IFA. This circumstance and the possibility of Canada proposing amendments to our settlement legislation, in contravention of the paramountcy clause, causes us to question the sincerity of Canada in developing a comprehensive land claims policy in the first instance.

.1625

When Canada negotiates and signs a land claims agreement, it makes a promise to the people of Canada that it has given life to a document that entrenches the elements of certainty and finality. That is why they are called final agreements. They are intended to give certainty to developers and confidence to the Canadian public that there will be a sound and effective scheme of management put into place in settlement regions. Any notion of amending settlement legislation on an ad hoc, frequent, or ongoing basis completely undermines the elements of certainty and confidence such legislation was intended to ensure.

We would like to be reassured of the commitment of Canada to fulfil its statutory obligations under constitutionally protected legislation, and trust that the work of this standing committee provides such reassurance. At the very least we, and I suspect other claimant groups as well, expect to be afforded a more meaningful involvement in the amendment and development of other federal legislation.

We thank you for the opportunity to supply this information and express ourselves.

The Chairman: We thank you too, Mr. Smith, for your comprehensive brief. It covers the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, for which we are not competent to engage in a discussion; it covers CEPA, which is in our mandate; and it covers land claims, which is beyond our mandate. You have made some interesting points, which we would like to look at on the record. Perhaps you could kindly provide us with a copy of your paper so we can read it and keep it in our record as we examine it next week in Ottawa.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): If I'm not mistaken, you can already count on negotiated agreements with the government of the Northwest Territories and you would like to be party to any new agreement that would eventually be negotiated with the federal government.

I would like to understand your position a little better. We have been reviewing CEPA for almost a year now. In the course of our examination, we have met groups from all over Canada. For that matter, it is in order to hear your views on the matter that we are meeting you here today. Do you have the impression that you have not been consulted in the past? I would like you to elaborate a little bit on that.

[English]

Mr. Smith: Our agreement is not only with the Northwest Territories; it is with the Government of Canada as well. We have a process that has been in place for 11 years now. It has worked well and is cost-effective. When it works well right now, why fix something that isn't broken within our region?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are you finished?

Mrs. Guay: No. Nobody is asking to change the system completely. When legislation is reviewed, there are consultation with the people in order to find ways to improve it. If there are elements in that legislation that you disagree with, now is the time to say so. If there are things that could be improved and that could help you, you should also tell us about it.

If amendments are made to a specific act, that is not with the purpose of violating someone's rights. On the contrary, it is with the purpose of making it more functional for everybody. I would like to know what we could do with CEPA that would be useful to you specifically. I would like to know what would make you better off and not what would cause you more problems.

.1630

[English]

Mr. Tom Beck (Chair, Environmental Impact Screening Committee): Perhaps I can provide at least a partial response to your question. To paraphrase what Mr. Smith described as being in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and its enabling legislation, for 11 years now the Inuvialuit have developed a system of co-management that really embodies many of the things I suspect a standing committee would want to see pursued and furthered under CEPA.

We noted in some of your background information that the Province of Manitoba was cited as a particularly good example of establishing a path toward the achievement of sustainable development, and I agree. Without taking anything away from that province or its efforts, I would submit to you that the example the Inuvialuit can bring to the table really encompasses all of that and more.

I think what we're hearing from Mr. Smith is perhaps a request for reassurance from the committee that these efforts of the Inuvialuit toward sustainable development and other things such as biodiversity, the linking of environment and economy and so forth will not be somehow limited in the future by CEPA.

It's unfortunate that everybody's time is limited because there are some truly world-class examples from the Inuvialuit settlement region. I think Mr. Smith referred to only the tip of that iceberg.

The Chairman: Your elaboration was very helpful, Mr. Beck. We certainly heard Mr. Smith seeking reassurance that the processes adopted in other policy fields will also be adopted in CEPA. We'll certainly keep that suggestion in mind.

CEPA is a different and quite elaborate policy field. This committee is attempting in its recommendations to reinforce the consultative side of the process, and in that sense your brief has registered quite a sensitive chord.

Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): I'd like to follow up on Mr. Caccia's remarks about consultation. I look at your settlement region and see it includes a huge part of the Arctic Ocean. There are two parts in CEPA that would impact on you directly, namely the ocean dumping provisions and the toxic part of it, which is really the main function of CEPA.

I was wondering if you could give us some comments on how you think coordination can happen amongst the tremendous number of organizations, governments and groups wrestling with Arctic issues right now. The other day the Canadian Polar Commission told us it's almost impossible to find out how much is spent totally on Arctic research on a cumulative basis. It is trying to find out.

.1635

You look at the various ministries such as DIAND; the departments of defence, fisheries and environment; the Arctic environmental strategy; the territorial governments; the Canadian Polar Commission. Soon we'll have an Arctic council. In fact, next year in Yellowknife there will be a meeting of parliamentarians in May or June, followed by a meeting of environment ministers. Do you see a place for these various interveners to get together with a cross-section of aboriginal people in organizations such as yours to see how they can make this total system more effective and make coordination happen, so that at a time when there is a tremendous shortage of money we can put whatever we have to the most effective use?

Mr. Herbert Felix (Director (Tuktoyaktuk), Inuvialuit Game Council): Could I venture a very quick response to two parts of what you were saying? One relates to ocean dumping and the other to toxics.

As a member of the former land use planning commission for the western Arctic, I can say the matter of offshore dumping preoccupied the people in each of the communities in the Beaufort region. They told us clearly, time and again, that they were opposed to ocean dumping. They did not want any toxics in their environment. They have encouraged industrial proponents to take out whatever they bring in. I think that's probably a message you've already heard from ITC and others.

Despite that, you have the curious situation where Environment Canada seems to be, and in fact is, acting to some degree as a proponent of ocean dumping. This persists. It is carrying initiatives toward that end. I think the people in the communities are quite nonplussed by this. That's a very specific thing.

One of my colleagues might have an answer that would tie back into the overall structure of your question.

Mr. Smith: We've been trying to coordinate research in the western Arctic, and to a certain extent in the east as well, on an informal basis. There are these linkages between the other claimant groups and the co-management bodies that are being set up under them. The opportunity is also provided by umbrella organizations like ITC to get people together to set up workshops, seminars and conferences.

We're certainly doing as much as we can within our budget. The point is very well taken. Money is getting short everywhere. Arctic research has never been very cheap to conduct, but we're certainly stretching the wildlife studies part of our budget to the greatest extent possible. It is largely in an informal way with the other claimant groups and the bodies they're establishing, which in most cases are not yet up and running.

Mr. Snow: Mr. Chair, there's a discrepancy to be given into the record. As Mr. Smith said, there are these excellent examples of cooperative management, but the difference in this case is that the Inuvialuit should have been consulted last time. They've been around for 10 or 11 years.

This has been submitted to The Journal of Wildlife Management; the title is ``Cooperative Wildlife Management Under the Western Arctic Inuvialuit Land Claim''. It's by John Bailey, members of the Game Council, and members of the Inuvialuit Renewable Resources Committee's joint secretariat.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Snow. Would you like to make a concluding statement before we move to the next group?

Mr. Smith: If any documents are sent out in the future we would appreciate getting them in a timely manner. We received these documents only a couple of days ago.

.1640

Mr. Beck: I think the overall message you've heard from this group is that the Inuvialuit Final Agreement has enabled the people in that particular area, the beneficiaries if you like, to pursue a proactive approach to pollution prevention, sustainable development, biodiversity, and so many of the things this committee is interested in.

Personally, I think the important message is that this has happened in Canada. Unfortunately, I think very few people in Canada understand the tremendous advantage that accrues from settlement of that particular claim and other claims that have since been settled or are under way.

The Chairman: We will certainly keep your observations in mind, Mr. Beck.

Thank you to Mr. Beck, Mr. Snow, Mr. Smith and Mr. Felix for your appearance here today. We will make the best possible use of your input in our concluding deliberations.

Our next witness is the Hon. Silas Arngna'naaq. We thank you for your hospitality. We welcome you and look forward to your comments.

Hon. Silas Arngna'naaq (Minister of Renewable Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to Yellowknife.

I hope some of you will take some time to see Cambridge Bay. I am from that general area in the east. Going into that many communities in the Northwest Territories is impressive for a committee, simply because I believe that to be able to come into a jurisdiction and see only one portion is to miss out on a lot.

With me is Emery Paquin, the director of environmental protection for the Department of Renewable Resources.

.1645

The purpose of my presentation this afternoon is to briefly discuss the challenges facing regulatory agencies in the north, and then present the Government of the Northwest Territories' views on the following four parts of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act: the application of CEPA as it relates to federal lands, the use of CEPA in protecting the north from international hazardous air pollutants, the control of wastes dumped in the Arctic Ocean, CEPA's relationship to aboriginal land claims agreements.

As I'm sure you can appreciate after travelling to Yellowknife from Iqaluit, the very nature of the Northwest Territories creates demanding challenges for federal and territorial environmental protection programs. The Northwest Territories comprises nearly one-third of Canada. Environmental protection measures must be applied to activities spread across this vast and diverse area. Distances are great, access is limited and operating costs are by far the highest encountered anywhere in Canada.

Although the challenges facing us are large, the need to protect our natural environment is even greater. Our environment and its renewable resources are an integral part of the economy and the cultural and social fabric of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents of the Northwest Territories. It is the people of the Northwest Territories, their relationship to the land and the need for responsible resource management that must guide the standards of environmental protection as development proceeds in the Northwest Territories.

The role of protecting our environment is currently one of shared responsibility between the federal and territorial governments. Over the past five years the Department of Renewable Resources has worked closely with Environment Canada to implement programs to protect our environment. It has not always been easy. Disagreements have occurred and they will likely occur again. But the goal remains the same: to protect our environment so future generations can enjoy the land, water and air of the Northwest Territories, and at the same time benefit from the responsible development of our resources.

Federal lands are defined in section 52 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to include ``lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada, or in respect of which Her Majesty has power to dispose and all waters on and air above such lands''.

In the Northwest Territories, blocks of federal land have been transferred to the control of the Commissioner in Council of the Northwest Territories. These lands are usually located around communities and highways and are referred to as commissioner's land. The territorial government has the right to use and dispose of these lands but does not have title. Within these block land transfers, the Government of the Northwest Territories exercises provincial-type responsibilities with respect to land management. With very few exceptions, all other lands in the Northwest Territories are controlled by the federal government.

During the early discussions on CEPA in 1988, senior officials from Environment Canada stated it was not the intention of CEPA to regulate the activities on land in the Northwest Territories, other than those known as federal works, undertakings, or Indian reserves. The wording of section 52 and the mechanism through which land is transferred to the Commissioner in Council currently creates, however, the potential for environmental protection gaps and overlapping authorities between part IV of CEPA and environmental protection responsibilities outlined in the Northwest Territories Environmental Protection Act. In some cases the territorial government has been reluctant to develop regulations because of the real possibility of overlap and duplication with federal requirements.

To our knowledge, the Government of Canada has yet to enact any regulations under part IV of CEPA that apply to these federal lands. It is incumbent upon the federal government to either act upon this authority or vacate the jurisdictional area in favour of the territorial government.

.1650

The standing committee now has an opportunity to clarify the wording of part IV with respect to its application to federal lands in the Northwest Territories. Alternatively, the standing committee should encourage the development of a clear statement on what the federal government's plans are for the implementation of regulations under part IV.

On the subject of hazardous air pollutants, the presence in the Arctic of persistent air pollutants such as PCBs, DDT, dioxins, furans and toxaphenes are becoming increasingly apparent and alarming. These contaminants are being found in Arctic air, surface water, sediments, snow, fish, marine mammals, sea birds and terrestrial animals. This is of particular concern in the Arctic where fish, wildlife and marine mammals are consumed by local residents.

In recognition that the Arctic and other parts of Canada are receiving a broad spectrum of persistent pollutants through long-range transport mechanisms, the Government of the Northwest Territories has expressed to the federal government on several occasions the need for international agreements leading to the control of these substances. This need was also expressed by the Yukon renewable resources minister, the Hon. Mickey Fisher, at the last joint meeting of environment and energy ministers held in Toronto in February.

We strongly recommend that CEPA continue to reflect the need to control persistent air pollutants that are entering Arctic Canada from other countries, as well as the need to regulate Canadian sources of international air pollutants. However, before entering into these international agreements, the federal minister must continue to consult with provinces and territories to ensure that Canada's objectives and commitments are consistent with those of the provinces and territories. CEPA should be amended to ensure these processes are followed.

As I stated earlier, the people of the Northwest Territories maintain a special relationship with their environment, including the marine environment. When Panarctic Oils proposed to dump 400 tonnes of scrap metal into the ocean off Lougheed Island in 1993 as a way of cleaning up an exploration site, it quickly became clear that dumping waste into the Arctic Ocean was more than simply a scientific or technical issue for northerners. The social and cultural values of the marine environment, including traditional uses such as subsistence harvesting by northerners, must be considered during an evaluation of the environmental effects of ocean dumping.

Northerners recognize that many benefits are received through development, such as offshore oil and gas exploration. They also recognize that operating costs for companies in the Arctic are extremely high, including the cost of waste disposal once exploration activities have been completed. Northerners support economic development that will lead to a better lifestyle, but will continue to insist that development not occur at the expense of their environment.

We recommend that revisions to the ocean dumping provisions of CEPA acknowledge regional differences in the use of the marine environment in Canada, and that these provisions recognize the unique relationship northerners have with the Arctic Ocean. Alternatively, the act should allow for an administrative mechanism through which this unique relationship can be considered when the ocean dumping provisions of CEPA are applied.

It is also important that the committee consider northern land claims agreements when making recommendations to change CEPA. Northern aboriginal organizations would be concerned if adjustments were required to their land claims settlements for them to remain consistent with new federal environmental legislation. We recommend that you review all final and pending northern land claims agreements to ensure that any changes to the act are consistent with the intentions and provisions of these agreements.

Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee, I trust that these remarks will provide some insight into the challenges we face in the north, as well as provide you with some suggestions we believe will improve the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I will also submit a written presentation to the committee, which provides greater background and detail for the remarks I've made this afternoon.

As the Minister of Renewable Resources, I want to see a federal act that not only protects our environment but also reflects the cultural, social and economic needs of all northerners. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to the committee this afternoon. If you have any questions, I will attempt to respond, with Emery's help.

.1655

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Your presence here today and your presentation provide us with tremendous insight.

Perhaps as a postscript to what you've said so far, you could help us by telling us what the deficiencies are in CEPA at the present time in relation to arsenic, for example. This morning we heard some important representations, which you've probably heard many times before. You must be familiar with the situation. I'm sure every member of this committee would like to know what is deficient in CEPA for not having been instrumental or applied in relation to mining activity and arsenic in the water system. Can you avail us of your insight on that?

Mr. Arngna'naaq: I think there are a number of implications within the act that could be used more effectively, although I'm not aware of the particular concerns that may have been raised.

We've been having difficulty with the mines and the manner in which part IV of the Environmental Protection Act is applied. It makes it complicated, especially in the Northwest Territories, when the words ``federal land'' are used because 98% of the lands in the Northwest Territories are federal crown lands. The act leaves the responsibility up in the air because it doesn't clearly state who would be responsible in implementing or enforcing the act.

I understand at the time the act was created the words ``federal land'' were intended to cover Indian reserve land. But here in the Northwest Territories I believe we have only one reserve and 98% of the land is federal land. It makes it difficult for us to say we will make regulations when they may not necessarily apply if the federal government decides to make regulations. The way the act is interpreted at present, it does not clearly explain who is responsible for what.

The Chairman: That is very helpful. It certainly moves our understanding further ahead. The fact that we would hear the statements made this morning after seven years of CEPA's promulgation certainly raises a number of questions about CEPA's effectiveness.

If you have anything specific to say about CEPA's lack of effectiveness, feel free to do so. Is it because certain activities are excluded under CEPA, or is it because the Fisheries Act is not being properly applied? What is deficient in the system to permit this issue of arsenic to emerge today so forcibly and understandably, seven years after CEPA was proclaimed?

.1700

Mr. Emery Paquin (Director, Environmental Protection Division, Department of Renewable Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories): Is this with reference to air or water?

The Chairman: Water.

Mr. Paquin: I believe there may have been some confusion this morning. I'm not sure because I wasn't here to hear the presentation.

With regard to water, arsenic is controlled in all industrial processes under the Northwest Territories Waters Act, which is administered by Indian and Northern Affairs and the NWT Water Board. Controls are placed on arsenic through a series of licences. I don't believe there is any deficiency with regard to CEPA. Arsenic in water is covered appropriately through the Northwest Territories Waters Act.

The Chairman: Have people made representations to you about this issue?

Mr. Paquin: People have made presentations to us with regard to arsenic in air. There are two particular issues here in Yellowknife that I think we have to keep quite separate. Arsenic in water, in my mind, is adequately controlled through existing licences and permits issued through Indian and Northern Affairs. Arsenic in air, however, is not controlled. Industrial air emissions are not controlled in the Northwest Territories. I believe that issue can be addressed further.

Mr. Lincoln: I think what they were referring to this morning was that mines are regulated under the Fisheries Act. There are metal mining effluent provisions. What happens in regard to arsenic is that it's covered for any new mines, starting from the date of the regulations. This means mines that existed before the regulations aren't covered. It also excludes gold mines for some reason, and I think that's what they were referring to as well. For some political reason at the time, from what the chief explained, there were some negotiations and gold mines were excluded. Existing mines were excluded because the regulations pick up new mines and exclude gold mines.

You can't take action with regard to the Fisheries Act, which is really the best vehicle sometimes under the habitat section, if arsenic comes into the water from a gold mine or a mine that was in operation before the regulation took effect. I could look up the date of the regulation, but I think that's the problem.

I have just received a note stating that arsenic in water licences under the Northwest Territories Waters Act does not necessarily meet the criteria of non-deleterious substances under section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which is what the Fisheries Act refers to. The Fisheries Act has almost a reverse onus, because if it's in the water there's automatically a case for prosecution. That's what I think they were referring to this morning - that a lot of mines manage to escape.

Under CEPA, arsenic was put on the priority substances list, but it isn't being regulated so it falls between the cracks except under your act, which I don't think goes as far as the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Paquin: There is a considerable amount of confusion right now between the Fisheries Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act. That is true. The Northwest Territories Waters Act, under the Water Board, licenses the water-borne emission of arsenic and other pollutants. All mines, regardless of whether they started operating before or following the metal mining effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, require an operating licence, a water licence, under the Northwest Territories Waters Act.

.1705

If you read the Fisheries Act it basically says if a substance is deleterious to fish, or a substance in a concentration is deleterious to fish, you cannot put that into fish-bearing waters.

You may wish to follow this up with another presenter this afternoon, Dr. Laura Johnston, who is actually a member of the Water Board. The Water Board has chosen to set limits that it feels adequately protect fish-bearing waters. Granted, there is a difference between the two limits. Without wanting to speak for the Water Board, it has accepted the principle of some dilution or mixing zone. The Fisheries Act speaks of end-of-pipe controls. So the Fisheries Act can be considered more stringent than the water licences.

The Chairman: So the people who appeared before us this morning really ought to make their presentations to the Northwest Territories Water Board. Would that be a fair conclusion?

Mr. Paquin: That would be my conclusion.

The Chairman: Can that be arranged?

Mr. Paquin: Can I refer this to a person in the back who is a member of the Water Board?

The Chairman: Of course.

Ms Laura Johnston (Manager, NWT Division, Environment Canada, Yellowknife): I can't speak for the Water Board on that issue. I wasn't at the presentation this morning and I would prefer not to speak on behalf of it.

The Chairman: I'm sure you will appreciate the fact that passing the buck is not something politicians, in particular, would like to become known for these days.

Obviously, there is a situation here where there are two jurisdictions. You've been very helpful in defining for us how the rules apply and in identifying the two bodies, including the one where less stringent rules apply.

Obviously, these people have a very urgent message to deliver, based on observations made over decades. What they told us was quite moving because they went back quite a period of time. We are pursuing this issue because we don't want to leave town and leave the matter unresolved in terms of accountability.

Ms Johnston: I appreciate the position you're in. I work for Environment Canada in Yellowknife. While I am a member of the NWT Water Board, I would prefer not to speak on behalf of the Water Board on this issue. I appreciate that the committee would like to resolve the issue, but I don't feel I am in a position to address the point raised.

The Chairman: We appreciate that very much. It also points to the accountability of the witness whenever boards are appointed because they have created this kind of a problem.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: I'm not even sure who made the presentation that caused the confusion this morning.

The Chairman: It didn't cause confusion to us at all, but we can read the names of the witnesses to you, so at least you know where it came from.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: The Government of the Northwest Territories has a number of complications compared to other jurisdictions in the provinces, simply because we don't have the authority in some cases to work with what would come naturally for a provincial jurisdiction.

.1710

In the case of water, we have a number of different issues that are covered under the Fisheries Act that are not our responsibility. Certain areas of the Northwest Territories may be covered under land claims settlement.

So it becomes quite complex when you deal with land or water in the Northwest Territories, because it's not just a provincial or a federal jurisdiction that would have a clear definition as to where the responsibility lies. But the federal government will also have a clear mandate for reserves in provinces.

The Northwest Territories are a different story because there are so many groups in the Northwest Territories that are trying to settle their land claims with the federal government, not necessarily with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

So in one area of the Northwest Territories, we are working on trying to come up with a master agreement with the provinces, namely on the Mackenzie River. It sounds to me like the members from Deh Cho were making a presentation this morning. It depends on what part of the Northwest Territories you're talking about when it comes to water, because different regulations or different agreements may -

The Chairman: You wouldn't reject the notion that arsenic is arsenic, regardless of where it comes from.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Granted. However, even in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act there is confusion as to who is responsible for what. Because of the way the act is written, it is not clearly stated who will be responsible. So some things are up in the air. We don't know who is responsible for what.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: In the case of water, now that I'm aware of it, it will be referred to the proper group or board.

The Chairman: Which is?

Mr. Arngna'naaq: I believe it to be the NWT water board.

The Chairman: All right, fair enough.

Mr. Gilmour (Comox - Alberni): You were asking about what part of the territories we're talking about. We're talking about right in your backyard, not very far from here at all.

It bothers me when I hear such words as confusion, complications, lack of authority, and cross-jurisdictions. The people we heard from this morning were extremely concerned about the arsenic in their drinking water. The fish they were catching were obviously not normal and not fit to eat.

I believe you said you felt arsenic was adequately dealt with. That really bothers me. Either you have arsenic in your drinking water or you don't. If you feel it is adequately dealt with, then basically you need to talk to these people and have their concerns addressed. They're clearly extremely concerned that their drinking water is not fit to drink.

We're hearing circles within circles, and nobody seems to really want to grapple with the idea that the drinking water may not be fit to drink.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that your committee is dealing with an area that in the Northwest Territories is more a concern of the fisheries department. Again, it would be referred to this particular department.

I think that the responses you hear are that historically there hasn't been a problem. Just recently the Government of the Northwest Territories has gone through a review of all departments and is going through a number of changes.

.1715

At the present time, if there is a request for testing of drinking water, this would be done by the Department of Health under the Government of the Northwest Territories. The drinking water is tested by the Department of Health, which would then, if there is a concern, raise it with the particular department responsible for that drinking water.

So it may be a different process from what you might see in a provincial jurisdiction, where they may have complete authority over different matters. In the Northwest Territories, it's usually somewhat different.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Minister, my view is that wherever the responsibility is, it's actually our job, as far as these toxics are concerned, to identify it for gaps or if there are jurisdictional cracks between which these matters are falling. So I think it's very, important for us to identify gaps and limitations.

We've focused on this question of arsenic for obvious reasons here, but I had thought the technology had in fact changed quite a bit over the years. Although there may be arsenic in the system - it's obviously a tragic problem - has there been progress made in terms of the technology so that, at least nowadays or for the future, the amount of arsenic that is being produced is reduced.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: I'll leave that with Mr. Paquin to respond to.

Mr. Paquin: There have been changes in technology. Presently the amount of arsenic entering into the environment in the Yellowknife area is significantly lower than it was 30 or 40 years ago, when there were no controls.

Now, as was mentioned earlier, there are controls on water-borne levels of arsenic. The one mine that continues to produce arsenic as a waste product does control the amount of arsenic entering the air through their roasting process. They do have technology in place. Although it is old technology, it is still removing approximately somewhere in the vicinity of 95% to 97% of the arsenic that would otherwise be emitted.

Mr. Adams: So it's now possible in fact to run mines in these gold operations with a minimal emission of arsenic, and a lot of the problem is cleaning up what's gone before and getting it out the system.

Mr. Paquin: I think you've hit the issue right on the head. We're dealing with historical emissions of arsenic that tragically remain in the environment - our sediments and our soils. Currently the technology is available and it is being used by industry to drastically reduce the current levels of emissions.

The Chairman: The question, of course, is whether a presence of 2% or 3% of arsenic in air emissions is acceptable. The question is whether x parts per million of arsenic in water is acceptable.

This seems to be an important matter that needs to be examined in terms of public health. I want you to let us know some of your thoughts on this matter and whether you are satisfied with these percentages.

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I really don't think it's so much a question for the Northwest Territories government, which actually has done quite a bit to regulate its water, from what I understand from them, as it is for us on the federal side. I don't agree with this question of confusion myself. I really don't see the confusion.

.1720

There are two ways of dealing with it. We can say to the Northwest Territories government that there's a Fisheries Act and CEPA. We're going to harmonize, so we have to make it one window. If we harmonize, how do we harmonize? Do they bring up their standards to make them equivalent to the Fisheries Act, which would probably be very difficult?

The Fisheries Act has been going on - take its section 36 - since 1868, which was the time of Queen Victoria. It's gone through all the tests in court, so we want to keep it. If we keep it, the only way to keep it is to make it apply, not to create confusion but as a backstop. It's another tool to use. Rather than say there's confusion, out of the three acts that apply, you would use the best of them in any circumstance. This is instead of just using one and leaving out the rest.

For example, today we can use the pulp and paper regulations, the Fisheries Act, or we can use other provincial regulations, depending on which one is strongest. If the habitat clause of the Fisheries Act gives us a chance to go more readily and effectively against the polluter, then we should use that.

It would seem to me that in your case you would have a better chance than even the province because you would have your own water board regulations. Then, as we haven't regulated arsenic under CEPA, we would put it under the PSL.

But we haven't done anything with it as yet, so it's in limbo. We should do something about arsenic.

Under the Fisheries Act, it's not just arsenic but zinc, lead, and all these things. We exclude all the mines before the regulation, which is April 1977. So the mines the gentleman was speaking about this morning are excluded. We exclude any mines before 1977, except if they reopen or expand. So we exclude a whole bunch of them. We exclude gold mines. Why do we exclude gold mines?

So I thought it was best to try to talk to the Fisheries people now to try to see if we can look at gold mines and the mines that escaped the net. Then we'll have your regulations, the Fisheries Act and CEPA, if we choose to recommend bringing arsenic in.

I would suggest that you're better off to have three tools than one. I think three chances against the polluter are better than one.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: I agree, Mr. Chairman. To add to the complexity I've already mentioned, we also have the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is always involved in the affairs of the Northwest Territories. They may have an influence in other departments of the federal government.

The process we're going through with a number of the departments has been devolution. In the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, there's a freshwater division, which is considering discussions with the Government of the Northwest Territories. Perhaps this is an area that could be raised with Indian Affairs and Northern Development in devolving some of the responsibilities of land and water to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Lincoln: Are they going to devolve section 36, the habitat provisions?

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Not that I'm aware of.

.1725

The Chairman: Are there any further questions for the minister?

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. You spoke earlier about overlap, duplication, and harmonization, and I wonder if you might elaborate a bit since this seems to be an issue in several provinces. I wonder if that has often been your experience in the Northwest Territories and if you have also been confronted with cuts to your environment budgets that are as significant as those we are faced with at the federal government level.

[English]

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Mr. Chairman, we have been affected to some degree by reductions. The Government of the Northwest Territories relies very heavily on the federal government. Any changes that are made to any federal department has an effect on the Northwest Territories.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Could you tell me a bit more about the instances of overlap between the federal government and the government of the Northwest Territories which you mentioned earlier? Could you give us some examples? In reviewing the legislation, could we try to determine whether this should be an area of federal jurisdiction or whether it should come under the government of the territories, rather than having all this overlap? Could we find a way to harmonize our respective involvement?

[English]

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Mr. Chairman, I think that would be very good. In my presentation I mentioned part IV of the Environmental Protection Act. It overlaps but does not necessarily duplicate, because there really aren't any regulations. At the present time, the way the Environmental Protection Act is stated, part IV could be applied by the federal government or it could be applied by the Government of the Northwest Territories. If we do any work in this area with regard to the air, it could be overruled by any federal regulations that are made. So the Government of the Northwest Territories has not really done much work in this area.

Part IV of the act with respect to the application on federal land is an overlap. It could be considered an overlap by the federal government and the Northwest Territories.

The Chairman: Going back to the exchange earlier with Mr. Lincoln, would it be fair to conclude, Mr. Minister, that given a choice, you would prefer that the application of section 36 of the Fisheries Act become an instrument to be transferred to the Northwest Territories?

.1730

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Any transference of responsibility from the federal government has always required resources of some sort. I think if the resources were there, it might work.

The types of devolvement that have taken place in the Northwest Territories included resources, again, because the majority of our resources come from the federal government.

We find that any resources the Government of the Northwest Territories has been willing to accept or to discuss with the federal government has worked better from the point of view of the Government of the Northwest Territories simply because we are here and we are consulting with the people in the Northwest Territories.

The Chairman: Have there been discussions in recent times about this?

Mr. Arngna'naaq: There have been no discussions at the present time. The only areas that the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government have been discussing in terms of fisheries and oceans is in the area of the freshwater fishery. That's the only division.

Mr. Lincoln: Fish management.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Yes, it's fish management of the freshwater fishery.

Mr. Paquin: There have been preliminary discussions over the last couple of years, however, with regard to the devolution of water management responsibilities and land management responsibilities from the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern development. To my knowledge, discussion of section 36 of the Fisheries Act has not occurred.

So when we are talking about the devolution of water management, we are talking about devolution from Indian Affairs and Northern Development rather than the Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, we thank you very much for appearing before us. We hope you will take to heart the discussion we had earlier on arsenic and your water board. Maybe you will be able to remove some of the confusion surrounding that issue. If you do, we would certainly be interested in knowing your conclusions.

We welcome the input you made this afternoon. It has been very helpful. We look forward to keeping in touch with you in the future.

Mr. Arngna'naaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear. You can rest assured that we do have a system whereby we do find a way of resolving any concerns that are raised. The concern that was raised before you this afternoon will be well taken care of.

The Chairman: The next witness is Chris O'Brien, on behalf of Ecology North. Welcome to the committee. We are glad to have you among us. Would it be possible for you to summarize your brief so there will be time also for questions?

Mr. Chris O'Brien (Member, Board of Directors, Ecology North): I'm a pretty fast reader. As you can see, I have tried to highlight what I have here, which will cut it down substantially. I'll do my best.

Ecology North is a Yellowknife-based environmental group that was formed in the late 1970s by concerned citizens in direct response to the very serious arsenic problems we had in town in those days. There are currently about 40 paid-up members, although Ecology North enjoys widespread support from a much larger population right across the north.

.1735

The submission provides background information on Ecology North and what it considers to be the most important issues relating to CEPA in the NWT. This is not an exhaustive review, as Ecology North is a small, volunteer organization with no full-time staff and no resources at its disposal to conduct a more thorough analysis of CEPA. We would be pleased to do so, should such resources become available. All the recommendations are highlighted and summarized at the end of the paper. You all have copies, I believe.

Federal environmental legislation is still the major means of environmental protection, although this is changing rapidly through the implementation of land claims, where public bodies are being set up for land and water management, and environmental impact assessment.

The GNWT has responsibility over wildlife and small parcels of land around communities. Its interests are mainly related to tourism and economic development. As you may have been told by the previous speaker, although air pollution legislation is on the books, there has been no enforcement under the Northwest Territories environmental protection act or the formulation of any specific regulations. Thus, in the NWT we must largely rely on federal environmental standards and policies.

I'm getting to various issues here, of which the first is contaminants. Through the Arctic environment strategy and its northern contaminants program, a substantial amount of research is being conducted on the significant issue of contaminants. The program is now at a stage at which the results are being compiled, and new directions may be necessary. However, the problem is that funding for this program will end in 1996-97. Therefore, we recommend that necessary funds be allocated to continue the research and monitoring of environmental contaminants in the Canadian Arctic.

The polar continental shelf project, which provides transportation, accommodation and other researcher support in the high Arctic and western Arctic, is being cut by about 50% over the next three years. The cuts to the project jeopardize our ability to fulfil some of the international commitments on environmental issues that Canada has made. Therefore, we recommend that the budget cuts to the polar continental shelf project be reversed, as this program represents a national and international commitment by Canada for research on contaminants and other matters.

We understand it is still possible to manufacture some pesticides, herbicides and other organochlorines in Canada for export, even though such chemicals cannot be used in Canada. This double standard must end immediately for Canada to have any credibility at the international negotiating table. The cumbersome and secretive reporting for the manufacture and use of these substances, as established through CEPA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada legislation, must be opened up to public scrutiny.

Therefore, we recommend that Canada ban not only the use of hazardous organochlorines but the manufacture and export of such substances for feedstock purposes. The reporting requirements for the manufacture of these compounds must be opened up to greater public scrutiny by amending CEPA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada legislation.

Gold mines around Yellowknife is an issue related to contaminants that is of particular concern to Yellowknife residents. Over the years, these have resulted in the release of significant amounts of arsenic and sulphur dioxide. The arsenic has been considerably reduced, but the sulphur dioxide continues unabated from the Giant stack over here. If you've been out that way, you've probably been through the plume and tasted and smelled it.

We still have 20 to 30 kilograms of arsenic trioxide and 58 to 65 tonnes of sulphur dioxide coming out of the stack every day. It does blow through town. When we taste sulphur dioxide in town, we also know we're getting little bits of arsenic trioxide from Giant.

The company, Royal Oak, stated that it's not interested in doing anything about it; it's going to cost them too much money. If they have to do something, they're going to close down and leave town. Basically, I think that's the approach Peggy Witte is taking. She was mining man of the year a few years ago, and this year's woman of the year, I believe, according to Chatelaine.

There are no legislative standards at the federal or territorial levels for the emission of arsenic, a proven carcinogen, or sulphur dioxide. Therefore, residents of Yellowknife are at the mercy of the company. You're familiar with the problems of vegetation damage and other unknown environmental and human health effects.

.1740

The technology exists to clean up this problem, which is to stop the sulphur dioxide and arsenic trioxide that's coming out of that stack. But Royal Oak simply is not willing to do it, even though they seem to have found enough money to make a takeover bid of Lac Minerals and acquire new properties.

As you may have been told by the previous speakers, discussions are under way between the GNWT and the company, but the company is under no obligation to do anything. As a result of requests under the territorial environmental rights act brought by two citizens - it was me and another member of Ecology North - a study was done of the situation, but it wasn't as thorough as we'd wanted.

We found out that SO2 and arsenic trioxide are coming out of the stack, and there are some human health concerns, but it seems it's not considered serious enough for anything more than new guidelines under the Northwest Territories environmental protection act.

Basically that's all we got. So we're still in the same situation, which is that the company doesn't have to do a thing if it doesn't want to. There are no enforcement possibilities here.

If this isn't an example of an industry being given precedence over people, I don't know what is. You were asking earlier about an example; I think there's the example right there. It's just a fact that people in this building don't seem to have the guts to confront the company. There's one MLA. Every time he brings it up in the house, he gets phone calls from people saying that's their job on the line.

So we get new guidelines, which are unenforceable, of course. In this instance, arsenic is a non-carcinogen. To quote from a CEPA assessment report:

The group of arsenic inorganic compounds as a whole has been documented to be carcinogenic in humans. Therefore, on the basis of the available data, arsenic and its compounds are considered to be toxic under paragraphs 11(a) and 11(c) of CEPA.

We feel Yellowknifers shouldn't have to wait any longer for the control of these emissions. We just can't rely on the company to do it voluntarily. We think it's unreasonable that the burden of proof always has to be on people like us to prove that these emissions are harmful, instead of on the company to prove they are not. This burden of proof thing was mentioned earlier. The precautionary approach or principle is absolutely necessary.

We recommend that CEPA regulations for the control of arsenic emissions be brought in on a priority basis as soon as possible, and all CEPA regulations should be premised on the precautionary principle. We further recommend that Environment Canada undertake all necessary actions to ensure the elimination of arsenic and sulphur dioxide emissions from Giant as soon as possible.

Consider the clean-up of abandoned sites. There are numerous abandoned sites across the north that urgently require a thorough assessment and clean-up. Progress has been very slow. The funds allocated for this effort are minuscule in terms of the actual work to be done. They will run out in less than two years.

Therefore, we recommend that the necessary funds for the assessment and clean-up of the abandoned sites in the NWT be allocated for this purpose.

Major contributions must come from Canadian and American military sources. There should be greater public involvement in the identification of sites and the setting of priorities.

There's an example of why the first part of that recommendation is in there. Funds used to clean up and old DEW Line site were not taken from military sources but other sources that were intended for cleaning up abandoned mines.

I'll skip down to below recommendation 7 on page 6.

Current land management regulations in the north are outdated and their enforcement needs to be vastly improved. As an example, under the territorial land use regulations, only those activities over a certain threshold require a land use permit with inspection and potential enforcement.

Here's a classic example. A fuel cache of less than nine drums does not require a permit. There is no record of where the cache was made and no requirement for the removal of the drums. Mining legislation requires those holding mining claims to do a certain amount of representation work, as it's called, on those claims.

.1745

This can be trenching or blasting. As long as you're doing something out on your claim with a certain amount of money, then you can keep a claim in good standing. There's an incentive to go out and mess the land up just to keep your claim in good standing. So this incentive isn't exactly environmentally friendly.

There's one other thing I'd like to say about the way this whole mining exploration thing is run. It's the idea that you have to go out and actually bang a post in the corner of your claim area.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with how large an area in the Slave geological province has been staked as a result of the diamond exploration rush. I wish I had that map with me. It's a vast area. It's about one-third the area of Alberta. It's huge.

Imagine that. The vast majority of corners of claims in that area had to have posts banged in the ground. Can you imagine how much helicopter fuel had to be used to get all that stuff up there and fly up and down these lines to put stakes in the ground?

Why couldn't somebody be sitting here at a computer here in Yellowknife? A guy comes in and says he wants to claim this area. There you go, buddy. Pay your $5 or whatever the heck it is.

What we're saying is that there should be a thorough review of land management and mining legislation in the north with a view to the principles of sustainable development - that hardly sounds like sustainable development to me - and consistent with Canada's international commitment in this area. If you read back, there's also the idea of a super-fund, such as what they have in the States, to ensure a fair and more rapid clean-up of abandoned sites in the north.

Consider ocean dumping. You may remember Lougheed Island from a few years ago. Panarctic wanted to dump a bunch of stuff through a hole in the ice. Environment Canada, after some controversy, caved in and took responsibility for the site.

Now they're calling it a research site. They're going to carry out some research on the effects of abandoning stuff on the land. It wasn't digging a hole and trying to make it disappear or digging a hole in the ice and getting it out of site, but just leaving it there to see what happens. We don't want to see that any more. This relates to the following section.

You may be aware of this. I think you may have heard about this from others earlier in your tour. It concerns what's happening at Rea Point on Melville Island. This is Panarctic again.

Are you familiar with this? Have you seen the list of stuff they're going to get rid of?

It's incredible. There are D7s and D6s. I've a list here if any of you are interested and you haven't seen this list of all the stuff they're going to abandon. This is at three sites. There are some gems here, like a hangar that's 80 feet by 60 feet by 20 feet and a warehouse that's 80 feet by 150 feet.

They want to get rid of 4 four by fours, 8 oil field trucks, 4 Caterpillar graders, 2 D7s, 3 D4s, and 14 fold-cut cams on a Nodwell undercarriage, which is a tracked vehicle. So this situation is just mind-boggling.

The company has already started to fill a football-sized landfill site. They were digging a big hole, about the size of a football field, to throw all this equipment in. They're actually going to drive some of these vehicles into the hole. You can imagine that these are still good vehicles.

This sort of disposal method is allowed by DIAND under the terms of the lease given to Panarctic in the late 1960s, I believe. However, no one has been allowed to see the terms of this lease; it's top secret, I guess. People have asked in Ottawa to see it. Sorry, it can't be done.

This kind of disposal of materials hardly shows the type of leadership or stewardship that a crown corporation, which Panarctic is, should display. It's just over 50% federal. Clearly, leases for crown land should be public documents, and DIAND must ensure that all materials brought onto any site in the north are removed.

We recommend that DIAND and other government land-management agencies in the north make lease arrangements available to the public, and that the terms and conditions of these leases ensure the removal of materials brought on site.

.1750

In conclusion, it is the view of Ecology North that CEPA has not been a very effective tool for environmental protection in the north. Little is known about the use of the act in the NWT, and regulations that may improve environmental quality in the north have not been brought in.

In conclusion, we would invite the committee to come to the north again very soon. You've had a quick visit, but I think you should come back for a more in-detail look. We recommend visits to smaller communities and perhaps some of the abandoned sites, such as mines or military sites.

The committee should consider hearings on general environmental policy in the north, which would allow for a more open discussion about the concerns of northerners, such as the co-management of resources, the recent diamond rush, environmental assessment and related matters.

That's our last recommendation. Come on back and visit. Take longer. See more. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

In your brief you have a reference on page 4 to certain quantities of arsenic, which is 25 to 30 kilograms per day. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the disposition of that quantity. Is there a reliance on dilution? How is that remarkable quantity disposed of?

Mr. C. O'Brien: They both come out of a stack. The intention of a stack has always been ``the solution to pollution is dilution''. But that stack isn't what it used to be; it used to be higher, for one thing.

Second, in the bad old days before they started taking arsenic trioxide out through the use of a baghouse, which is what I think the technology is called, the gas just came out faster. So it went up higher before it dispersed. It's still not a good situation, but it just means it spreads it out more. So there's more dilution.

We are getting more concentrated sulphur dioxide around here, for sure. There's far less arsenic trioxide than there used to be, but it's still coming out. It's a known carcinogen. What the heck are we allowing that stuff in the air for at all?

There's another very similar mine in Ontario called the Campbell Mine at Red Lake. I don't know exactly where that is in northern Ontario. The company went to the trouble of spending tens of millions of dollars to clean it up.

This company doesn't seem to be interested in doing such a thing. But it seems to me that if the technology exists and this company is in a financial position of being able to try to take over Lac Minerals, then they should be willing to spend the money to clean up their act.

To answer your question, it goes up in the air and then it's gone. That's what they hope, anyway.

The Chairman: We'll have a quick round of questions, but before we do so, can you give us the date of the study by Health and Welfare Canada mentioned on page 4. When was the assessment on the human health effect conducted? Second, you indicated that in 1994 arsenic was placed on the priority substances list in CEPA. What happened since August 1994, which is again on page 4?

Mr. C. O'Brien: Just to go to the second part of the question, you're asking about the reaction here after arsenic was declared toxic?

The Chairman: What happened in the operations of the mine since it was put on the list?

Mr. C. O'Brien: Nothing, as far as I know.

The Chairman: We need to put that on record.

Mr. C. O'Brien: It's been declared toxic, but I don't think anybody's responded through new standards. Ontario, I believe, has standards for arsenic in air, but I'm not sure if we do. We have guidelines, but we have no regulations. I think Ontario has regulations. I'm not sure what they are, but there's been no real response directly through that declaration that this is a toxic substance under CEPA.

What was the first part of the question?

The Chairman: The date of the Welfare Canada study.

.1755

Mr. C. O'Brien: My confrère Kevin O'Reilly was the other person who, under the NWT environmental rights act, requested that the minister do this study of that situation.

The Chairman: You pointed out someone who is not in the room, and this is being recorded.

Mr. C. O'Brien: Okay, he's the Northwest Territories Minister of Renewable Resources. Part of our request was the impact on human health. So of course they asked Health and Welfare Canada to have a look at this.

``Human Health Risk Assessment Release'' is a press release from the GNWT. It's dated July 21, 1993. It states:

We do not feel that an imminent health hazard exists from the sulphur dioxide levels.

- this is sulphur dioxide in Yellowknife -

The levels detected, which exceed the one-hour maximum acceptable levels, are in the range in which mild, reversal respiratory effects would be seen in sensitive individuals, particularly asthmatics.

Here is an important thing with regard to arsenic. It notes that:

Arsenic emissions have decreased dramatically over the past two decades because of changes in technology. However, Canadian and international regulatory agencies have classified arsenic as a known human carcinogen. For this reason alone, exposure to arsenic should be reduced to the lowest possible level.

So they're not saying they think this mine should close down immediately or that regulations should be applied to decrease the amount of arsenic to zero. They're being wishy-washy. They're weaselling out by saying that the exposure to arsenic should be reduced to the lowest possible level. They're covering their backsides without actually causing anything to happen.

The Chairman: What is that report?

Mr. C. O'Brien: This is a press release by the Government of the Northwest Territories. It's the result of an assessment of the potential human health risks of the emissions. The assessment was completed by the environmental health directorate in Ottawa. In other words, GNWT here requested the health directorate in Ottawa to do this assessment based on the information supplied by the Department of Renewable Resources.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: The Minister of Renewable Resources told us a moment ago there existed already on an island a filtering system which reduced from 95% to 87% arsenic emissions. Have you heard yet of the system? What can we do? We cannot simply close down a plant. There has to be a way of forcing people to act, but there are different ways of going about it. I would like to hear your comments on this, please.

[English]

Mr. C. O'Brien: I think it would be a very simple matter of the GNWT, under the Northwest Territories Environmental Protection Act, bringing forth regulations for how much arsenic and sulphur dioxide can be allowed into the air. Technology exists for the company to apply its process so that in fact those emissions would be eliminated completely.

There's something called the pressure oxidation system, which is being used by this mine in Ontario that I mentioned earlier. There's no stack involved at all. There are no air emissions. All the sulphur dioxide and arsenic trioxide that come out of this stack would be kept inside. I don't know exactly how it works; I'm doing some research on that now. These emissions would be eliminated completely from going into the air. There are other emissions, of course, into the water, but that's another matter.

.1800

Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Let's just look at your recommendation number 4, which is that the CEPA regulations should be premised on a precautionary principle. When Chief Antoine of the Deh Cho was here this morning, he expressed the concern that the legislation was giving precedence to industry over people. I asked him if he thought that if we make a recommendation for the regulations to be premised on a precautionary principle, that would address that concern. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Mr. C. O'Brien: It never made sense to me that the burden of proof was on people like me or concerned individuals anywhere in government or anywhere else to prove that something was harmful, rather than having the burden of proof being on those who are putting these pollutants into the environment and their having to prove that these things are not harmful. That never made any sense to me at all.

I think the only common-sense approach, if we're going to do the right thing, is to reverse that burden of proof through a precautionary approach using a precautionary principle. It's only common sense.

Mr. DeVillers: So that would address his concern or his remark about the perception, or the reality perhaps, that the environmental legislation gives preference to industry over people.

Mr. C. O'Brien: Yes, I think that would turn everything on its head. We would get to a realistic and common-sense situation, which we do not have now.

Mr. Gilmour: If the mine is taking 97% of the arsenic out of the air, it has to go somewhere. Common practice has normally been to put it into unused sections of the mine.

Do you know where it's going? If it is going back into the mine, where you have fractured rock and groundwater going through, aren't we just looking at another time bomb?

Mr. C. O'Brien: I remember a water board hearing some years ago. It was not only for the purpose of addressing that situation, but it was discussed. There was much talk about how permeable or impermeable this rock was. Can you make sure that none of it is going to seep out over the centuries to come?

I can't exactly remember what the conclusion was, but I think we always have a concern with that. It wasn't just being stuffed into an old well. Maybe originally it was being stuffed into old tunnels, but I think there has been a requirement by the water board for certain works be done underground to ensure that this stuff will be as immobile as possible. That's always a concern. It's the same concern as the people who are trying to fight the stuffing underground of nuclear waste are facing.

You can never be 100% sure. This is true of anything in life, I suppose. It is a concern, for sure. Because the technology in the old days wasn't as efficient as it is now, there is still gold in a lot of the arsenic-laced remains that were put underground. So I think they actually want to go back through some of that stuff to get the gold out. I don't know what effect that will have on the mobilization of all that stuff.

Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): I'm just thinking about improvements that the mines are using to control emissions. In your view, which government should take the lead in trying to force that action, the federal or the GNWT, and what would the legislative wherewithal be so they could do that?

Mr. C. O'Brien: As I mentioned, all we have so far are air emissions guidelines under the Northwest Territories environmental protection act. Certainly, regulations could be brought forward under that act.

In that particular case, it seems the GNWT has the power but I guess not the will. I'm not sure exactly what role the federal government could play with the air emissions exactly. Is there anything that exists now? It seems not. Maybe CEPA could be used in some way.

Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Do you think we should have a provision in legislation such as CEPA to allow the federal government to force the action on the GNWT or another government that won't take those steps?

.1805

Mr. C. O'Brien: Who else is going to do it? Perhaps there should always be some sort of federal fall-back position. We were talking about this a couple of nights ago with regard to endangered species. It's all very well to have all these acts in place, but if someone isn't actually doing something with their act, then who's going to push them to do something?

All Canadians have an interest in maintaining clean air, even in Yellowknife. An old professor of mine said that not only is everything connected to everything else, everything is everything else. We ignore that sort of thinking at our peril. So there has to be some sort of fall-back position, and I would have thought that CEPA, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, would be good.

Mr. Adams: I sort of knew about the Ontario case. The gold mines there have a lot of new technology. It's a new situation for gold.

In your report you suggest that the Con Mine was cleaned up 25 years ago. Is that more or less completely cleaned up by using technology that was available 25 years ago?

Mr. C. O'Brien: They don't roast. They haven't roasted since then. The situation is that the ore is far different. That's why Con was able to clean up the air emissions years ago. I think there's not as much sulphur in the ore. Anyway, the composition of the ore is different, which allows them to do what they've been doing in the last 20 years or so.

I guess Giant couldn't use that same technology, so that's why they didn't switch over. Their ore just wasn't able to be handled by the technology that is used at Con, although I believe that Con has a small version of a thing called an autoclave, which is part of this pressure oxidation technology. They have a small one over there for going through old tailings, I think. The technology is in town; it just hasn't become large enough, hasn't moved across this side of town yet.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): We've been receiving witnesses who represent industry, first nations communities, environmental groups, etc. There's not always a common thread. Some groups have more common threads than others. A number of witnesses have already expressed this situation. You mentioned today that if an MLA gets up and speaks about their concerns around mining, they get phone calls about jobs.

In order for us to be fairly progressive about the kinds of amendments we'd like to see in regard to CEPA, we have to find a way to bring groups together to understand. I'm wondering if you have anything to share on that. How have you been able to work in a way that brings together some of the different interests in this community with very divergent ways?

Mr. C. O'Brien: I'm the most reasonable person I know. I'm friends with everybody and I always treat people civilly. I don't believe in an ``us and them'' situation. Perhaps other people do believe that, but I don't.

I don't want to close Giant down; I want them to be environmentally responsible. I really think it's possible. It's going to be a matter of spending money. Their profit margin will go down, there's no question about it. How much is a company willing to pay for goodwill so that people like me will feel warmer toward people like Peggy Witte? I'm willing to try to do anything to keep good relations in this town and across the Northwest Territories, but I think we all have to realize that there are interests here that go far beyond just the immediate interests of companies and even individuals.

You heard this long-term view from the elders this morning. Over this part of town, people used to pick blueberries. There used to be a stream that ran down where the main street goes down to the old town. They used to walk up the street - this didn't exist then - from where they camped to pick berries. Someone told me they picked berries over at Giant. They thought they would always be able to do that. There's no reason in the world why they shouldn't still be picking berries there now.

.1810

Certainly they want their grandchildren's grandchildren to be doing these sorts of things, but in other places, of course.

That's the kind of view I'd like everybody here in town to have. I'm going to live here the rest of my life. I've only been here 20 years, so I'm not a real northerner by some people's standards, even though I love this place. But I won't go into that because I'll get very worked up.

It's the long-term view that we have to keep in mind. If we can just begin to think as the elders think, then a lot of things could happen, but some people have a very short-term approach. They're in here to make as much money in as short a time as they can; then they want to get out. I think that's not the kind of corporate approach we want.

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. O'Brien, I don't know if you followed the discussion before when we were discussing arsenic. I'd like to know your views, for the record, on three things that we can hopefully include in our chapter on the Arctic or somewhere in CEPA.

First, I imagine you'd be strongly for the regulation, as soon as possible, of arsenic and those substances that are found to be toxic under CEPA and that are not regulated.

Second, I imagine also that you'd be in favour of the Fisheries Act being amended to include mines other than every new mine, which would be expanded and reopened mines, mines existing before 1977, and gold mines, which for some very strange reason were excepted.

Third, I wonder if you could also tell me about part V of CEPA, international air pollution, which hasn't been used. It's like a dormant section that could be the answer to your SO2 problem.

It says that for any substance or contaminant emitted into the air by a source or sources of a particular class in Canada that:

(a) creates or may reasonably be anticipated to create air pollution in a country other than Canada, or

- this would be be the case with SO2 emissions -

(b) results in or is likely to result in the violation of an international agreement entered into by the Government of Canada in relation to the control or abatement of pollution,

- this is again the case under the climate change change convention -

the Minister shall recommend to the Governor in Council regulations with respect to the source or sources for the purpose of controlling or preventing the air pollution or correcting the prevention of the violation.

So in the case of the Northwest Territories, it's much easier than in the provinces, because they're all federal lands until they are ceded over. Would you recommend that we use part V to make a strong pitch and look at this section to do something about it?

Mr. C. O'Brien: Perhaps this is the fall-back position or whatever. It's a position that can be brought in if there's nothing else available to deal with the situation such as what we have here. If it can be used, and there's nothing else being used right now, then why not use it? Yes, for sure, I think that's a very good recommendation.

Mr. Lincoln: So maybe you can just start pushing with your 40 members and the 400 -

Mr. C. O'Brien: We'll do our bit at this end. We'll see what we can do. It seems to me that you, at least, will be pushing from your end. I encourage everybody on this committee to to so.

Mr. Lincoln: That's all of us, including Sir John, who's very famous.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, thank you very much for your excellent brief and for your presentation and interest. We are grateful to you and we wish you all the best.

Mr. C. O'Brien: Thank you for the opportunity. Thanks very much.

.1815

The Chairman: Let me make a brief announcement. We have one hour left for this committee before we adjourn, because our saturation point is rapidly being reached. We started this morning at 8:30 a.m.

The first half of that hour will be shared by the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board and the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council. I repeat that it will be shared by those two groups if both groups are in this room. If there is only one group in this room, then it will be 15 minutes for the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board, which will then be followed by Environment Canada.

Would the people in room who belong to those two groups please come forward? It's my understanding that Robert Charlie, the chair of the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board, is here. Welcome. He is flanked by Peter Clarkson, the executive director, and Wynet Smith, policy and management analyst. Welcome.

Please make a brief presentation so there will be time for questions.

Mr. Robert Charlie (Chair, Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board): Thank you,Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We're glad to be here to make our presentation.

We're here on behalf of the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board. As you mentioned, we have two staff members with us, who will be making some comments and responding to any questions you may have.

Although we were not contacted or invited to make a presentation, we felt it was an important issue for the Gwich'in beneficiaries of the Mackenzie Delta as well as other residents of that area. I guess we sort of found out by accident that this committee was here in town. This was while we were also going to make a presentation on endangered species.

The board we represent has been in operation for about one year, and we have all our staff members in place now. Although we have not received any background information on CEPA, we've been very fortunate in hiring Wynet, who has done a lot of work for this committee. She has been able to fill us in on some of the details.

I will make some brief comments on the brief we have tabled with you. We, the Gwich'in people, feel this is a very important issue. We would like to be involved in the process, although we haven't been to date. There has to be more consultation, which I guess would also take place through the board.

The board has a mandate for wildlife management in the Gwich'in settlement area. As such, we have to ensure that Gwich'in beneficiaries also have input to any proposed legislation, and the ability to comment on this legislation.

The Gwich'in people, like all other native people, have very strong ties to the land and the wildlife of the area. As such, any development that would impact the environment of this area has to be looked at very closely. There have to be strict controls on any emissions or pollutants released.

We also see enforcement as a very important issue for any development that takes place, whether it is in the Gwich'in settlement area or upstream. We're at the end of the Mackenzie River, and we have a lot of tributaries going into Alberta and the south Mackenzie.

We also have to ensure that wildlife, which includes fish and migratory birds, are prevented from becoming polluted with contaminants, as most of these species come in from southern areas as well.

.1820

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has great importance for peoples in the north, including the Gwich'in Nation. Any threat to the health of the environment and the wildlife is a threat to a way of life that has existed for thousands of years.

Toxic contamination is a serious issue for people in the north. As I mentioned before, the Gwich'in way of life relies heavily on wild food, so any uncertainty of the effects of toxins, whether that's borne by land, air or water, is unsettling, to say the least.

What makes it worse is that most of these sources are outside of local control. The Gwich'in, the land and the wildlife are subject to air- and water-borne contaminants that are created hundreds of thousands of miles away.

There are a couple of issues that we've all heard of. One would be the depletion of the ozone layer, which is having some effects on the weather of the Mackenzie Delta.

I just want to refer back to the Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement. There are a couple of objectives in it, which are in the brief we handed out.

One of the objectives is to recognize and encourage the Gwich'in way of life, which is based on the cultural and economic relationship between the Gwich'in and the land.

Another objective is to provide the Gwich'in the right to participate in decision-making concerning the use, management and conservation of land, water and resources.

Another objective would be to protect and conserve the wildlife and the environment of the settlement area for present and future generations.

These are very important objectives, but they are threatened by external influences on the health of the environment and the people who rely on it.

I would refer again to the Gwich'in land claim agreement. The board I represent is entrusted with some powers, and these are to establish policies and propose regulations with respect to the harvesting of wildlife.

Another condition of the claim is that the government is required to consult with the board on wildlife-related matters and seek the timely advice of the board on the following matters: draft legislation respecting wildlife or wildlife habitat and land use policies or draft legislation that will likely impact on wildlife or wildlife habitat.

There are many external factors that impinge on the ability of the board to effectively manage wildlife and other natural resources over the long term. One of the issues we are presently dealing with - you may be familiar with it - has to do with the Porcupine caribou herd and the proposed development of the 1002 lands, which are also part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The impact of toxic contaminants is another issue. These substances threaten the health of the environment, the wildlife that is part of it and the health of the Gwich'in people themselves.

An example would be a site about 125 miles from here up the Peel River where oil exploration was being done years ago. They just buried all the equipment they couldn't take out. Now that's becoming a threat of being released into the water. There's going to be a clean-up on that, but that's one area in which we're concerned that this would possibly affect the water.

One of the duties set out in CEPA is to take both preventive and remedial measures in protecting the environment. The act defines the environment. I am sure you're all familiar with this. Indirectly, CEPA has direct implications for the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat. In the act itself, regulations and the enforcement of those regulations must factor into this consideration.

The board I represent has a vested interest in ensuring that the proposed amendments to the act will serve to strengthen the protection of the environment. However, these amendments must consider that with our land claim in place, we have a co-management board that has to be consulted as well.

.1825

That ends my part of the presentation. I'll pass it over to Wynet, who's going to give you the recommendations we've come up with.

Ms Wynet Smith (Policy and Management Analyst, Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board): There are just a few short ones, many of which you've heard before, but which we think are important to reinforce.

The first point I want to make, as Robert already mentioned, pertains to the essential nature of consulting with the native groups and co-management boards in developing whatever environmental management regimes there are.

That goes into our second point, which is that there's a CEPA document, Environmental Protection on Indian Lands, that discusses a number of options for dealing with the regulation on Indian lands. Something like long-term option number 5 might be a possibility. Unfortunately at this point, because of the short time we've had to prepare, we can't say for sure that it would be the option we would recommend. It's definitely an important option to pursue, and having a separate section in CEPA to deal with native lands is a possibility. There also has to be room for a lot of negotiation, because each native group or land claim area might choose to pursue a different route in terms of how they want CEPA applied on their lands.

The board would like to voice its support for recommendations that have been made in the past to shift CEPA from an end-of-pipe sort of legislation to one focusing on pollution prevention, which includes a more precautionary approach, a reverse onus or shift in burden of proof, a shift in weight of evidence and the use of a polluter-pay principle.

We feel that new substances found to be toxic, bio-accumulative and persistent should not be used or produced. The goal should be not only to control the discharge of substances, but to discourage the generation and use of toxic substances. As a number of people, including Robert, have pointed out today, the ones who suffer are the ones downstream or far away from where the generation actually takes place.

Redefining the definition of CEPA toxins to be less restrictive or narrow is another necessity. In terms of determining the definition of toxicity, or in terms of determining whether or not a substance is toxic, there should be more types of knowledge included in the process. In paragraph 2(h) of the act, the duties state that the government of Canada shall ``apply knowledge, science and technology to resolve environmental problems''. This knowledge should include local knowledge about impacts on or changes to the environment and wildlife.

There should also be an amendment requiring that new substances found to be toxic are placed on the toxic substances list - not only ``may'', but that they ``shall'' be looked at.

An hon. member: I'm sorry, which paragraph are you referring to? That was 2(h)?

Ms Smith: I unfortunately don't have the specific...2(h) was the first part.

The assessment process needs to be revisited and switched from a substance-by-substance approach to a class approach. The fact is that in the past almost seven years in which CEPA has been in place, only 44 substances have been looked at. Of those that have been determined to be toxic, action has actually been taken on very few. That's just not acceptable.

To answer a question that might come up, we could say CEPA has not been effective in many regards. The low number of cases of enforcement is a good example of that.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. We have time for two questions.

Mr. Adams: I'm thinking of the statement you made, Mr. Charlie, that all the pollution you get at the delta of the Mackenzie may not come from anything in your particular settlement area but from hundreds of miles away. We know that the beluga whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are very heavily contaminated by things that have probably come from the Great Lakes. In fact, I think the science is fairly clear on that.

.1830

Have you any examples of any fish, creatures or mammals to indicate that this process is in fact already going on with respect to the delta of the Mackenzie River?

Mr. Charlie: As far as I know, there were some studies done that found there were contaminants in the fish. I can't go into specific details, but as I say, there have been studies done on different species. For example, I think they did a cadmium study on the porcupine caribou herd a few years ago, and they were found to contain some pollution.

Mr. Adams: That could have been airborne, I suppose.

Mr. Charlie: It could have been airborne. That's correct.

Mr. Adams: If you do come across any such studies, I think we would like to get hold of them.

Ms Smith: Yes, I know of a few. There are a few specific ones on furbearers. There is one on mink that shows contamination levels, but it's believed they are mostly from airborne pollutants.

Mr. Adams: In this instance, I'm thinking more of the river.

Ms Smith: Right.

Mr. Peter Clarkson (Executive Director, Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board): In the fish studies they have documented, the further you go down river the less contamination there is. But there still is contamination, especially in the organs.

In the case of loche livers, which are considered a traditional delicacy and are fished each fall - the liver is often the first thing the people would cook and eat from the loche - testing has found that they contained quite a high level of several different contaminants, and that work has been done. In some communities, such as Fort Good Hope and places that are closer to Norman Wells, they've suggested that loche livers not be eaten any more. The rest of the loche is fine, but not the liver.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Charlie, I found the brief very interesting. I liked the thread of emphasis on prevention, which is all the way through it, and I noted what you said about being involved and so on.

Just for your information, we have had a presentation from the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, so we do have some sense of your general environment. But on this matter, I think your involvement is particularly interesting because you're just at the stage, as I understand it, of structuring your comprehensive claim and actually implementing it.

Mr. Charlie: That's correct. We're just in the process.

Mr. Adams: So it's a good stage at which to get involved in this review of the legislation.

In terms of that - not for developers, now, but for your own people - do you already have under the claim ``government'' powers to enforce and deal with infractions among your own people that are distinct from dealing with the development that might come out of whatever?

Mr. Charlie: No, I don't think there's anything in the claim to deal with enforcement at this time, but we have the ability to make revisions to the act that may be applicable in certain cases. That power is there for us to make the changes so that we can enforce any infraction within the Gwich'in settlement area.

Mr. Lincoln: I would like to ask a question of Wynet Smith. I think the recommendations you mention really reinforce what we've heard before, particularly numbers 3, 4 and 6. I'm glad you mentioned paragraph 2(h). I think that's the first time we've heard of it, so it's very welcome.

In regard to number 1, that native groups should also be involved in the determination process for identifying substances that are toxic, I want to know what you really mean, for purposes of the report. This discussion has come up. Would you be talking about native groups being involved in some sort of format under subsection 6(1), which provides for a federal-provincial advisory board to the minister? Or are you are talking about the sections that deal with consultation? There are two of them, subsections 8(1) and 12(3), which say the minister may consult all kinds of associations, but no aboriginal groups are mentioned in there.

I was wondering if what you would try to convey in your recommendation might be taken care of. These consultation sections say the minister ``may'' consult. I was wondering whether it would fit in with what you're trying to do here if we had a subsection that said ``and the minister must consult aboriginal groups, etc.'' in both these sections.

.1835

Ms Smith: This is intended to ensure that there ``is'', not just that there ``may be'', a spot where there is that native and traditional knowledge involvement. It could be something through a position on an advisory council or your alternative, which would be acceptable as well.

We just made a similar recommendation in our brief to the endangered species legislation. There were very general comments in their document on aboriginals having a very important role and on traditional knowledge needing to be included, but there was nothing else mentioned in the brief. They talked about scientific experts being on COSEWIC and about there being other bodies to draw from. So we made the recommendation to perhaps have somebody from one of the land claims areas as part of COSEWIC to ensure that the traditional knowledge aspect gets included in the process.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The previous witness has suggested that we need to develop a general environmental policy for the north. That's certainly been coming through in different ways with all the witnesses we've been hearing, especially with regard to CEPA and other things. I'm just wondering what your opinion of this is, and why you think the north needs a special kind of environmental policy.

Mr. Clarkson: For a number of reasons the north would need some special considerations, if not a special section in the policy.

One of the reasons, which several people brought out today, is that the people in the north have a much closer connection to the land. We could go to your freezers in Ottawa and we probably wouldn't find geese, fish, caribou, moose and all of those things that are, in a sense, bioaccumulating some of these contaminants. For the people in the north, that's just part of their everyday life, culture and tradition. They depend on doing that each season, so they're much more affected by contaminants that animals may pick up.

But the northern environment is also much more sensitive than a lot of other southern environments. In the cases discovered in a lot of the early oil exploration research, regeneration of vegetation in areas where there were oil spills took perhaps 50 to 100 years, whereas in southern areas it took 4 to 5 years because the environment was much more productive.

So I think there are a lot of things that make the north very special, and considerations should be taken.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Do you see a section in CEPA that would address these issues separately? Or are there things, through your recommendations, that would support concerns that northerners have? Do we need a special section in CEPA talking about the north? Or can we deal with recommendations in general that support your concerns?

Ms Smith: My immediate response would be that in some ways there need to be, just to handle the range of situations you get with the land claims and the boards that are set up. Each claim is different, as are the boards that are set up and the powers that are set up. As different groups go through the self-government process there will probably be a range of regimes that people would like to establish. So there needs to be something that allows for agreements to be negotiated.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: That's certainly something the committee has been struggling with. Thank you.

An hon. member: Another reason for making a special section might be carrying on from what you said, Peter. We had the early warning lines in the north in the hot war with Russia. I wonder whether the Arctic isn't our early warning system with respect to pollution. We've talked about it being a global sink there. Maybe we should have a little special attention for it on that basis.

Mr. Clarkson: I agree. That would be a good recommendation, again emphasizing the close connection between the people and the land and the wildlife. Similar to what Chief Seattle said over 100 years ago, what happens to the land and the water and the wildlife eventually happens to the people. As we heard this morning, we're seeing some of those things happen already.

.1840

The Chairman: That was a very nice way of concluding this presentation. Mr. Charlie,Mr. Clarkson and Ms Smith, thank you very much.

We are now going to accommodate a group that will come before Environment Canada, and that group has just arrived. We're very fortunate to have with us two representatives from the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council, in the persons of Violet Camsell-Blondin and one elder, Joe Migwi. They will make a presentation to us. They have kindly agreed to compress it.

We welcome you this afternoon to the committee. We are glad you were able to come. The floor is yours.

Ms Violet Camsell-Blondin (Renewable Resource Coordinator, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council): Thank you. We're speaking on behalf of the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council. The council represents the Dogrib communities around the north arm of Great Slave Lake and towards the north, mainly the communities of Rae-Edzo, Rae Lakes, Snare Lakes and Whati.

The traditional territory of the Dogrib people lies to the north of Yellowknife. It is that area identified by our Chief Mophwi when he took treaty on behalf of the Dogrib people in 1921.

The Dogrib people have [Inaudible - Editor] aboriginal rights and treaty rights throughout our traditional territory. The priority for us at this time is to negotiate a comprehensive claim and self-government with Canada on the basis of our aboriginal and treaty rights. That having been said, I want to introduce our elder to say a few words.

I'll translate. I don't think there's a Dogrib translator here.

The Chairman: Please go ahead.

.1845

Mr. Joe Migwi (Elder, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council) (Interpretation): In 1928 gold was discovered in Yellowknife, and since then mines have opened in Yellowknife. As a result of the type of mining that we have, these particular mines have damaged a lot of our environment and have spoiled a lot of our water. In essence they have contaminated our water.

Since the days when the first mines were opened, exploration companies have started mines. They weren't too successful and as a result there are a lot of abandoned mines in the Slave geological area. From these old abandoned mines there are a lot of tailings that have not been cleaned up.

Just recently, the federal government started this project, this funding, under the Arctic environmental protection strategy. We have just begun to obtain that funding, but we understand it will not continue in the next fiscal year.

A fine example of the abandoned mines that have been discarded in our area are the well-known Ray Rock Mines, which were uranium mines. Every year around this time, the springtime, when the snow melts and the water flows, the water drainage system carries it to Rae-Edzo, down to Great Slave Lake, and then down the Mackenzie River. We're quite concerned with this particular mine because we know there have been 18 cancer-related deaths among people who were at one time associated with the mine or who used to work there. We're also concerned about of the wildlife in that area, like fish, muskrat and beaver, which we continue to obtain for food.

Also, we just recently got into this program. We have a committee known as Dogrib Renewable Resources Committee, which was established last fall. Just recently we've become aware of a lot of these environmental projects and of the funding we could have sought. We could have cleaned up our backyard, the environment of the area in which we are working and trapping.

We recently submitted a proposal, but we know there are a lot of past exploration sites and abandoned mines. There is a lot of dynamite exposed on the land, along with a lot of waste materials. Just when we're in the process of securing information and identifying and assessing these hazardous wastes, we understand the federal government is going to cut the funding. What's going to happen to future mines that are coming to our land and are going to develop our area? What protection do we have so we don't experience past activities like those at the Ray Rock Mines?

.1850

Another concern we have is due to the increase of mining activity in our area. Since the well-known diamond rush began, a lot of mining and exploration has occurred. The fear is that there is going to be more traffic on these winter roads, transporting hazardous chemicals on our lands and on the lakes. We're quite aware of a few of the accidents that have happened.

We understand that the country needs economic development, that there's an opportunity to make money and create jobs. But there should be some kind of monitoring system to ensure that the transportation of these hazardous wastes is under control and to ensure that the land is not damaged or contaminated, because we continue to trap wildlife here. We depend on the wildlife in this area for food.

I understand that you've had a long day. I appreciate that you took the extra time to listen to us and to hear our concerns. I also understand that you want to ask me some questions. At this time I'm prepared to answer any you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Violet, for translating, and we also thank Joe Migwi for his excellent summary. We appreciate the information very much, and I'm sure that at least two members, if not more, will want to ask a question. I know Mr. Adams is dying to ask a question.

Mr. Adams: It's about the diamond exploration and so on. It's my understanding that there is a fairly major environmental review of this. Are the Dogrib involved in it in any way?

Mr. Migwi (Interpretation): We've travelled with the review committee to our four Dogrib communities. We voiced our concerns and the committee understands where the Dogrib people are coming from. We continue to discuss the concerns we have and the position the Dogrib Nation is going to have towards BHP Diamonds Inc.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Chief, to your knowledge has there been any monitoring of these abandoned mine sites? You mentioned several in your area. Has there been any scientific study of what actually is there or of what should be done to clean them up?

.1855

Mr. Migwi (Interpretation): For the last few years we've identified the concern that the delta people had in relation to the Ray Rock Mine and possibly contaminated water and the environmental contaminants to the wildlife as well.

This summer the federal government - I think it's the Department of the Environment - are going to be assessing the Ray Rock Mine and their options as to how they're going to seal the tailings and that abandoned mine.

I guess they've been monitoring that particular mine, because for the last few years we've been saying we want the government to do something about it. But there are other mines in our area near the community of Rae Lake. At Beaver Lake Lodge, I think, there is another abandoned mine. We want to see if somehow funding could be available to clean up that particular site as well.

A voice: So something is being done.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: In conclusion, I'd like to say that today we mostly heard representations on the mine problems. I believe the Committee is very aware of these problems and we are going to look very closely at what is happening with the mines in the Northwest Territories, around Yellowknife.

Has the Department of Renewable Resources of the Northwest Territories done anything yet? Has anything been done to decontaminate these old mine sites?

.1900

[English]

Mr. Migwi (Interpretation): The Department of Renewable Resources is mainly responsible for wildlife. Just recently, since the Dogrib Renewable Resources Committee was established, we have developed a working relationship with the department. Since this committee was formed, we have discussed numerous concerns pertaining to abandoned mines and tailing ponds, because the big concern we have is that the caribou that migrate into our area go through these tailing ponds and some of them are getting stranded in them. These are the animals we depend upon. If the caribou are contaminated, it means that our health is in jeopardy.

There are several of these abandoned mines and tailing ponds, as well as waste material and debris that has been left behind by previous developers, scattered on our land. We're concerned about the future of our people and the health of the environment. I guess what we're saying is oriented towards sustainable development in the future.

The Chairman: Joe Migwi spoke earlier about eleven deaths from cancer in recent times. Why do you attribute these deaths to mining activities? Is it because you've observed caribou grazing on land where the mining tailings are located, or is it for other reasons? In other words, why do you attribute cancer to mining activities?

Mr. Migwi (Interpretation): I'm saying that because we know that the miners who have worked underground, who worked closely with uranium products, are not living today, and we know that they died because of cancer-related illnesses. They certainly aren't alive today.

The Chairman: Is that the mine you mentioned earlier or is it another mine?

Ms Camsell-Blondin: It's the same mine.

The Chairman: That is the Ray Rock Mine?

Ms Camsell-Blondin: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will examine very closely what you said.

We're very glad that you took the trouble to come such a distance to speak to the committee. On behalf of every member of this committee, I want to thank you for the trouble you took and the interesting evidence you gave us.

.1905

Mr. Migwi (Interpretation): I understand that you are quite tired, looking around this table. I see a lot of people who are about the same age as I; I see a lot of white hair. I have gone to a lot of meetings too, as chief and as councillor, and I understand where you're coming from.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Last, but not least, we have Environment Canada.

Welcome. We appreciate the fact that you waited so patiently. Would you like to introduce your team and launch your theme.

Ms Laura Johnston (Chief, Northwest Territories Division of Environment Protection, Department of the Environment): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Laura Johnston. I'm chief of environmental protection for the NWT division. With me are Mr. Ed Collins, who is head of the environmental engineering section, and Mr. Todd Burlingame, who is the environmental assessment coordinator.

What I'd like to do is very quickly go through a few of the highlights of this submission. You have the written copy in front of you. I won't read the entire submission.

We would like to focus on the issues that are of specific concern to environmental protection in applying the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the Northwest Territories. There are four main areas: part II, particularly with the regulation of PCBs; part IV as it applies to federal lands; part VI, as you have heard on many occasions, I'm certain; and spill reporting regulations.

Very briefly, the PCB regulations have had a positive effect in the NWT. The application of the regulations during clean-up of the DEW Line, in both the Department of National Defence and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, have continued to work at their sites to bring them into compliance with those regulations.

The site assessment work that's been done on behalf of DND, DIAND and the Department of the Environment confirms that removal of PCBs from the DEW Line sites will reduce the quantity of PCBs that are entering the arctic environment. Based on an extensive data set acquired during these studies, DOE believes that it has a reasonably good understanding of how PCBs migrate through the environment.

The studies indicate that PCBs in soils at levels below 50 parts per million, the regulated limit, may also enter the arctic food chain through uptake by plants, aerial transport over short distances, or run-off into the aquatic environment. The clean-up criteria that have been established for the DEW Line include a requirement to remove some soils contaminated at levels below the regulated limits and to remove these soils from contact with the environment.

We will continue to assess the available data to determine if a lower level of PCB concentration in soils is required to protect the arctic environment.

You heard from the Minister of Renewable Resources on the issue of part IV. We support that sorting out of the intent and the wording of that section so that everyone will be clear on both the intent and what the actual application of that part would be.

.1910

That issue has been eloquently described by earlier presenters.

Ocean dumping has been a major issue of concern. It became particularly noteworthy following the application by Panarctic Oils for a permit to dispose of 400 tonnes of scrap metals near Lougheed Island. I understand that you've heard many presentations regarding that. We have continued to pursue that issue in a number of meetings.

At one point during the Panarctic proceedings a list of disposal options was developed. I present them in order of priority: reuse of materials in situ or at another location, either in the north or south, to make some use of what was there; disposing of it in another location, preferably in the south; disposal on site, preferably by burial, which was less appealing; and ocean disposal. The community representatives and the Government of the Northwest Territories supported this order of options and, as you've also heard, remain opposed to ocean disposal.

At the time we were evaluating the Panarctic proposal, one of the difficulties was the lack of information pertaining to the effects of this material in the marine environment. Since that time, we've undertaken a number of studies to look at the impacts of historical ocean disposal in the Arctic. What did it do? Did it cause a concern? I've attached a list of some of the research that has been done since that time. We've brought a couple of the reports that have been prepared if the committee is interested.

I'd like to make two points with regard to those studies.

With regard to scrap metal, there are elevated iron concentrations near the metallic objects in two of the areas we studied, but these levels returned to background within a few metres of the objects. There was no accumulation of iron in the animals collected near the objects. There may have been some small contamination of soil, but nothing getting into the marine animals that were collected. In fact, one of the research projects that was conducted showed that iron may in fact be limiting productivity in the high Arctic. When we attempted to follow the food chain, that seemed to be the limiting factor.

The other major contaminant that we found in these studies was PCBs. We found them in the sediments and in marine animals at Cambridge Bay, Iqaluit, and Resolution Island. However, all of the sources of these contaminants were shore-based. We did not find any source of PCB contaminants in the marine environment.

We therefore recommend that efforts be focused on eliminating and regulating shore-based sources of contaminants. Whether part VI of CEPA is the correct way of doing that, given its prominence for meeting our requirements under the London Convention, I don't know. However, in our opinion, the shore-based sources are far more significant than any of the sources that we investigated in terms of impact on the marine environment.

One final point in the discussion of ocean disposal is that recent discussions have focused on scrap metal, Panarctic in particular, but other activities in the NWT are regulated under Part VI of CEPA. I've attached a list of the permits and the types of permits. Ninety per cent of the permits issued in the NWT are for materials other than scrap metal. In any revisions that might be undertaken to Part VI, we recommend that care be taken to ensure that regulations are in place to require that all materials entering the marine environment are properly disposed of.

Over 60% of the permits that we issued between 1978 and 1993 were for dredged sediments. So there are broader implications than scrap metal when dealing with ocean disposal in the north.

.1915

The last area we have found in our operations in the NWT is that enforcement is sometimes limited by the lack of spill reporting regulations under CEPA. I've listed a number of examples, but would conclude by saying that we recommend that relevant spill reporting regulations should be brought into force as quickly as possible. It's very hard to do something about an event we don't know about.

We were also requested to provide some information regarding potential environmental impacts of diamond mining. We have a three-page hand-out and a longer article on diamond mining, if that's of interest to the committee. We'd like to leave those copies with you.

Thank you very much for the chance to come and speak. We'd like to answer questions.

The Chairman: This is a very comprehensive paper. We realize that the resources of the department are very strained and stretched, but you are a federal agency, French and English are the two official languages, and in future we would appreciate very much documentation, if any, being presented in both official languages. It is an absolutely essential component of our activities, and there is no excuse for any federal agency not to do so.

Ms Johnston: My apologies to the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Mr. O'Brien: On the matter of PCBs, you mentioned the removal of PCBs from DEW Line sites. I missed the first part of your presentation, so I apologize if you've already answered my question. What is the ultimate disposal of the PCBs that you're proposing?

Ms Johnston: It is both the Department of National Defence and DIAND, not us, who are proposing that materials above the regulated limits will be removed to the south for disposal and destruction at an appropriate facility. For soils contaminated at levels below the regulated limits, two types have been identified in the clean-up criteria. They will be removed from contact with the arctic environment. There are a variety of proposals for ways of doing that.

Mr. O'Brien: When you say ``disposal in the south'', are you talking about destruction at Swan Hills in Alberta?

Ms Johnston: I believe that is the plan.

Mr. O'Brien: You gave a number of options in the discussion of ocean dumping. One of them was disposal of materials in the south. What does that mean? Where in the south, and why in the south?

Ms Johnston: That list evolved through a number of discussions. There really are a limited number of ways of disposing of materials from the north. For each site, those generic groups can be looked at more specifically, but they were offered originally as a hierarchy of ways of dealing with them. The material and its composition would make a difference to what would be recommended as a specific item for a given site.

Mr. Gilmour: Considering the discussions we have heard through most of day about arsenic in both the air and the water, I expect that a number of scientific studies have been done in both airborne and water-borne movement of arsenic. Are you aware of them and, if so, could you make them available to the committee?

Ms Johnston: I am aware of some of them, and I will collect the ones I can access and make them available to the committee.

Mr. Gilmour: Could you summarize some of their conclusions?

Ms Johnston: The study referred to earlier was the June 1993 results of the investigation under the NWT Environmental Assessment Act. Unfortunately, I didn't bring a copy with me and I don't have the results at my fingertips. That's probably the best summary at the moment.

Mr. Gilmour: Are you aware of Environment Canada sponsoring or taking leadership on any studies?

.1920

A witness: Environment Canada was responsible for putting together the assessment of it as part of the assessment of the 44 priority substances that were identified under CEPA. Environment Canada undertook the assessment of arsenic as part of that list in order to determine its toxicity and bioaccumulation and persistence.

Ms Johnston: The committee has not received a copy of this paper. The arsenic and its compounds under the priority substances list assessment report have been referred to earlier.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Rightly or wrongly, the members of this committee take arrsenic quite seriously. It may be that we are wrong, in which case we would like to be told so. But if we happen to be right, then we would like to see some enthusiasm and some action on the part of Environment Canada on this issue. If Environment Canada cannot take any action, then we would like to know why and who would take action on this issue.

There seems to be a distant, cool approach to this issue, which I find rather disturbing. Therefore I invite you to comment if I am wrong and to straighten me out. I will be glad to listen.

Ms Johnston: We take arsenic seriously as well.

The discussion earlier in the afternoon centred around the difference between the regulation of arsenic in air and arsenic in effluent from the mine. Perhaps I could address both of those, since they are both potential concerns.

Arsenic in the liquid effluent from the mine is regulated, under the NWT Waters Act, by the NWT Water Board. The enforcement of those regulations is the responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The water board puts a licence in place through a consultation process. That contains limits that are as stringent as, and occasionally more stringent than, any values found in the MMLER, the Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations. Then it is the responsibility of DIAND to enforce the terms and conditions that are in the licence.

As far as the air arsenic is concerned, there is a bit of a regulatory vacuum in that part V of CEPA does not appear to cover it. To our knowledge, it has not been proven to be an international air issue.

As the Minister of Renewable Resources described earlier, they have been reluctant to move under their act because of the potential overriding influence of part IV of CEPA in the way federal lands are currently described. That has resulted in perhaps a lack of speed in dealing with the issue. My understanding is that they are now moving forward with guidelines and, potentially, regulations under their legislation.

The Chairman: Why would you quote part V but not part II?

Ms Johnston: Now that the assessment report is in place, if and when there are regulations that deal with arsenic, we'll enforce them.

The Chairman: Why under part V?

Ms Johnston: When the process under part II of CEPA has dealt with arsenic, if regulations come from that process, then we will certainly enforce them. So that is another option for dealing with the arsenic issue.

Mr. Adams: Laura, when we meet in the regions with your colleagues, we always ask them about relations with the provinces.

In your case, it seems to me you have two provincial counterparts: the territorial government and DIAND. Having said that, I can see that's a bit more complicated than it appears to be at first sight, but given that one of them is federal it should be easier.

.1925

I just wondered if you would discuss your relations with DIAND and the complications to you, as DOE, working in this particular environment.

Bear in mind that one group said - I think it was this morning - that DOE had a very low profile.

Would you care to comment on that, in light of the role of DIAND in the territories?

Ms Johnston: I will try to be brief.

In terms of numbers, DOE is a very small group relative to DIAND in the territories. That may in part account for some of our lower profile.

We have found this to be a recurring problem. Even in joint partnership ventures that we have had with DIAND where the resourcing is 50-50, we still seem to acquire a lower profile. I don't know what the answer to that is.

I think part of the challenge of working in the territories is that - you're right - DIAND operates as a quasi-provincial entity. It is also a federal entity.

Several acts are in place that are specific to the north, to DIAND; for instance, the NWT Waters Act. My understanding is that when it was first brought into force it was to be more preserving of the northern environment than the laws that applied to all of Canada. Since then, the laws that apply to Canada have in many ways caught up with the NWT Waters Act. So you have a case where a federal act, the NWT Waters Act, is used to regulate the water use, and yet there is also the Fisheries Act, which was referred to as well. They both occupy part of the same field. It makes application of those two part of the challenge.

There is a similar situation in the marine environment, in that the specific legislation that DIAND administers overlaps with other federal legislation. Again, when the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act came into force, it was more conservative than the general Canadian act. Now they're quite parallel.

So sorting out the differences between not only a quasi-provincial department called DIAND but an environmental department called DIAND with the environmental department called DOE has led to some confusion.

Mr. Adams: So in fact it's not a help to have a federal department on the prevention side.

Ms Johnston: I guess there are two ways of doing it. Either DOE and DIAND need to regularize their environmental legislation or, once DIAND has devolved its responsibilities to the territorial government in the environmental field, a form of harmonization between the federal and territorial governments could take place.

I don't really have a strong sense of which is a more sensible way to proceed.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: When we talked to the Minister for Renewable Resources, he said that there were overlaps in Part IV of CEPA and that some provisions of Part IV should be brought back under the umbrella of the Department of Renewable Resources. I would like to have your comments on this issue and know whether it would really be feasible. Is it possible to administer the area through one level of government?

[English]

Ms Johnston: I'm sorry, but I can't answer you in French.

The main problem with part IV of CEPA is the definition of ``federal land''. That seems to be what causes the overlap or the potential view of overlap. Resolving that issue won't make the other problems go away, but it will make who is occupying which field much clearer.

.1930

That's where the issue needs to be addressed, because right now part IV of CEPA could potentially apply to 95% of the land mass of the NWT, and the Department of Renewable Resources has indicated its reluctance to occupy the same field at the same time.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Exactly. How many people work at Environment Canada, here, for the NorthWest Territories, for the protection of the environment?

Ms Johnston: Fourteen.

Mrs. Guay: Thank you.

[English]

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have quickly looked at the brief on the diamond development in the Northwest Territories. At the top of the second page it states that in terms of water treatment:

Treatment facilities must be designed to reduce the contaminants in the processed water to an acceptable level.

Could you tell me what kinds of contaminants might potentially be present?

A witness: So far, the milling processes that are being proposed for any diamond developments are not using any chemicals; it's a water separation. So we're looking totally at suspended solids, and flocculents will have to be added to precipitate these out prior to release. That is the only treatment that will be required in the proposals that we've seen to date.

I don't know if that answers your question.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I don't know what flocculents are, but....

A witness: Chemicals.... I think they use alum in domestic water supplies to get the sediment out of holding tanks prior to pushing it through the domestic lines.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What are the sediments or the suspended solids?

A witness: Kimberlite is the ore in which the diamonds are hosted. They are crushed and separated through gravity separation in a big water slurry. It's these particles of the kimberlite ore that are left in suspension.

The chemical composition of this kimberlite substance is non-acidic, whereas in most metal mines you're looking at acidic leaching of these things. It's actually alkaline.

Environment Canada has done a couple of studies and one is ongoing to determine whether or not this kimberlite material, when it's in a suspended state and finally crushed, will leach out any toxics. The toxics we're talking about here are simply particles of the ore or the hosting -

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So you're not yet clear on what toxics might leach out of the kimberlite once it's crushed.

A witness: Yes. Studies have been done. We're doing others to duplicate them, to verify those that have been done by the proponent. So far, nothing other than, I think, elevated aluminum levels has come forward with the leaching out of these materials.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So it's not possible that arsenic would be a naturally occurring substance.

A witness: So far, not in these kimberlite pipes, and I don't believe arsenic has ever been found in any of them in any of the mines in the world.

Mr. Lincoln: Ms Johnston, I appreciate that when a substance is listed under the PSL and eventually declared toxic, the decision is left with the powers that be in Ottawa to decide to regulate and that this is not your business.

At the same time, given the deep interest of various people in this issue of arsenic - and there might be other contaminants as well - have you put any pressure on DOE or Ottawa to see that this regulation...?

The declaration of toxicity was done in 1993, almost two years ago. Have you put any pressure on DOE to issue a regulation under part II as soon as possible?

.1935

Ms Johnston: Ottawa is certainly aware of the issue of arsenic in the local environment. We have not made direct representations to speed that process.

Mr. Lincoln: Would you? In the light of what's happened to date, it's obvious. It almost permeates every statement that people have made here. It would solve both the air and the water issues if it was a regulation of the CEPA. CEPA doesn't make any distinction: it's a toxic and it'll regulate the toxic. Right?

Ms Johnston: It will regulate the toxic, yes. I'm less certain of how it will be applied to a facility such as the mine. Perhaps that's something that the regulation writers need to address.

Mr. Lincoln: Could address.

The Chairman: Before you go to the question, we must hear from Ms Johnston on whether she will.

Ms Johnston: Certainly, based on what we've heard today, I will undertake to do that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln: In regard to the ocean dumping permits, I heard your memo, and read it, that you haven't found any necessary contamination or linkage between the dumping of metal and contamination of the Arctic. At the same time, in regard to Panarctic, we heard of the dumping of 7,000 tonnes. It seems to me to be colossal. That is 7,000 tonnes in Mr. O'Brien's list.

Especially if we are going to turn to pollution prevention in the CEPA, can you see any reason why people such as Panarctic, or any other corporation that wants to come and work in the north, shouldn't post a substantial bond, or there shouldn't be some other preventive measure that would force them to deal with their own scrap metal, whatever it is, whether it's scrap metal, whether it doesn't disturb the ocean unduly - They should take it back with them. Let them be forced to do it, rather than us having to prove through studies, for which the taxpayer pays, that it's not contaminating the ocean. I find it to be absolutely horrendous that these people come here and dump stuff in the ocean and then we have to show that doesn't produce any effects, while meanwhile they're sitting back there and just laughing. Let them pay for taking it back; otherwise, don't let them come here.

Ms Johnston: I view it as being a two-part issue.

Certainly, given the change in environmental regulations and the concern that we have for the environment, for any company that is coming to the north now, I think it is perfectly legitimate to say, if this is the wish of the people of the north, that if you come to the north you must remove everything south when you are done. For a company coming now, that is a legitimate request to make.

For companies that came 20 years ago, I'm not as certain of how you apply that in the past tense. When Panarctic came to the north, ocean disposal was an option that they understood to be available to them. Times have changed.

My opinion is that one needs to separate preventing future problems from occurring by taking the sorts of steps that you suggest and then working to clean up the mess we have. I think those two operations require different sets of principles to work with. So I agree: make a line in the sand that says, ``From here on, here are the rules''. But I think there has to be a different way of dealing with the issues that have arisen over the last 20, 30, or 40 years of development in the north. I'm not sure that they can be the same.

Mr. Finlay: I have three points I want to make. At the top of the second page you say that Environmental Sciences Group, DND, which I guess is the Department of National Defence, indicates that PCBs in soils at levels below 50 parts per million may also enter the arctic food chain through uptake by plants, aerial transport over short distances, or run-off. Then you say that the clean-up criteria for the DEW Line included a requirement to remove some soils at levels below the regulated limit and that available data will be able to determine if a lower level of PCB concentration in soils is required.

.1940

It seems to me that this is a perfect example of where the precautionary principle should be applied. We shouldn't have to think about if a lower level is required. A lower level is required. The lowest level we can get is required. We shouldn't have to think about whether they may enter the arctic food chain. We know that they enter the arctic food chain.

Why are we playing around - and it's not just your doing - with words here? If we're going to put the precautionary principle into this act, then it seems to me that this is a perfect example.

Ms Johnston: If I can offer another perspective on what is written here, the tests that have been done show that below a certain concentration in the soil, PCBs do not get into the arctic food chain. They are not subject to uptake by plants. They do not appear to be remobilized into the air. There is a level above which we see a problem, but there is a level that does not appear to cause a problem. I can't even imagine what the cost of attempting to remove all the soils that are below that level would be.

What these studies have shown to us is that where there is the potential to enter the arctic environment, those soils should be removed from contact. That is indeed what DND and DIAND are doing at the DEW Line sites. Below that level, there are probably better ways to spend that money.

Mr. Finlay: Is that level 50 parts per million?

Ms Johnston: It appears to be lower than that.

Mr. Finlay: That's exactly my point. You said that there is a level below which it does not appear that it enters. What I have read here is ``below 50 parts per million'', which immediately I assume to be the level that's been established.

Ms Johnston: It's the current regulated level, yes.

Mr. Finlay: Exactly, the current regulated level. It's not low enough obviously to prevent contamination. We either don't know the level or we may know the level or we have to pick some level. That's where we're at. It's not the way to run a railroad.

Anyway, let me go into my point. This is almost as confusing. The intent of part IV was to ensure that the operations of facilities of the federal government that are beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of provincial or territorial governments do not cause environmental problems. My understanding is that part IV was to ensure that DOE would look after everything beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of provincial or territorial governments. Am I getting that right?

Ms Johnston: Then I, unfortunately, have a different understanding. My understanding is that it was to apply to facilities of the federal government, -

Mr. Finlay: Not just DOE.

Ms Johnston: - not 95% of the Northwest Territories. But perhaps I'm the one who is mistaken.

Since that is a recurring subject of discussion between ourselves and the territorial government, I would certainly like to see it clarified. Perhaps that's why I phrased it ambiguously. That's my understanding of the intent. I don't wish to presume to say whether that's right and proper, but it has created a difficulty, because it is subject to interpretation.

Mr. Finlay: Okay, but then you say that this has led to some differences with the territorial government over the applications of our respective legislation.

Ms Johnston: We referred to an example of that earlier, the air regulations that -

Mr. Finlay: But, behind that, is it that the territorial government likes this definition and says, ``You look after 95% because that's what you're supposed to do because of the Queen in right of Canada''? Or is it because they would like to do more or they would like to take more control of their own land and we're saying, ``No, that's not yours; it's just that 5% that you've been given under the land claims agreements, etc., the surface and subsurface rights''?

.1945

Is that all that they want to take, or do they want to take more responsibility? I can't figure out what these differences are. Are we fighting a turf war, or is it a matter of ``You pay the piper, because we don't want to''?

Ms Johnston: My sense from the presentation earlier in the day from Renewable Resources is that they would like to occupy that field. That would be my sense.

Mr. Finlay: Okay. So when we get to ``If the legislators did not intend to add this restriction'' - In other words, if they wanted the Northwest Territories to take more, then they should have taken more.

Ms Johnston: Yes.

The Chairman: This has been a terrific afternoon.

We thank you for having waited so patiently. It is always a pleasure to listen to you,Ms Johnston, and we thank you very much for your input. We look forward to keeping in touch with you on these issues.

Ms Johnston: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chairman: The meeting stands adjourned.