[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 21, 1996
.1107 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are going to be continuing our study of the environmental regulations in the mining sector. I suspect that most people are aware that the committee issued an interim report just before Christmas. We are now continuing that study.
Today we are pleased to have as our lead-off witness, from the Mining Association of Canada, Mr. Miller. With Mr. Miller are Justyna Laurie-Lean and Robert Stan.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I suspect that you have an opening statement you would like to make, and I'm sure that then our committee members will be pleased to ask some questions.
Mr. C. George Miller (President, Mining Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.
We have distributed a text, which I am going to read. It is about a six-page statement. We will be happy to take questions after that.
As you say, Mr. Chairman, my name is George Miller and I am the president of the Mining Association of Canada. Justyna Laurie-Lean is our vice-president of environment and health. She'll handle all the tough questions you may have for her.
We're also very pleased to be joined today by a representative of the Coal Association of Canada. Bob Stan is director of coal marketing. As you know, a lot of our mineral products, including coal, are sold offshore. Mr. Stan can answer questions on the international side.
In addition to consulting members of our own association and the coal association, we've sought the views of companies in the uranium mining business, because this is an area in which the federal presence is very substantial. We believe that we're able to represent a cross-section of the views of the mining industry today.
We're certainly pleased to have an opportunity to appear before you as you begin your work in the new session of Parliament. We would like to congratulate the chairman and all the new members of the committee on their appointment. We assure you that we'll be very happy to work with you as you continue your work.
The Mining Association of Canada is the national association of the Canadian mining industry. It comprises companies engaged in mineral exploration, mining, smelting, refining, and even a certain amount of semi-fabrication. Member companies of our association account for most of Canada's output of metals and major industrial materials.
.1110
The association's functions are to promote the interests of the industry both nationally and internationally, to work with governments on policies affecting minerals, to inform the public, and to promote cooperation between member firms on joint problems.
The title of this submission is ``Regulatory Reform and the Mining Industry''. Those committee members who have served on the committee for some time know our industry is very anxious to see a rationalization in Canada's regulatory system. Last fall we made a major presentation to your committee, and your interim report indeed reflected many of our concerns.
I think I should say up front today that the mining industry is very disappointed at the pace of regulatory reform at the federal level. The problems identified as long ago as 1992 have still not been rectified. There are still extensive duplication and overlap in environmental regulation with the provinces and a great deal of confusion within the federal level between different departments. Your own reports have apparently gone unheeded. We are aware officials of the Department of Natural Resources are working at the interdepartmental level to get agreement to the necessary changes, but until now tangible results have not appeared.
I wish to stress that at no point is our association recommending a reduction in the standards of environmental protection. As the original sponsor of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, and as the first national mining body in the world to have a binding environmental policy, we stand by our commitments to improve environmental performance continually. But we do not believe duplication and inefficiency are necessary accompaniments to environmental improvement.
Our plan for today's submission is that we would like first to review the major regulatory issues facing the mining industry and update some of the points we made in our previous submission. We will also discuss your interim report and make a few comments on it.
Next we propose to make a few comments on the Speech from the Throne, specifically the proposal to devolve management of mining to the provinces. Third, we believe it would be worth while to say something about the capacity of our industry to contribute to the economic development of rural Canada. Some of the new thinking in the industry has been expressed in the principles of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative and it is reflected in the enthusiasm with which the Keep Mining in Canada campaign has been received in mining communities.
Mr. Chairman, I've mentioned the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, and I just want to say that I believe most members who have served on this committee before have had copies, but for those who have not had copies I've brought a few copies. They are in English only, but copies are available in French, and the clerk has a number of those copies.
Finally, we want to leave time for a discussion with you later today.
In our submission of last November we discussed the critical need for concrete action on regulatory reform. My written brief says a copy of that submission is included with the information kit, but that's not true. We have not brought additional copies of the earlier submission. They can certainly be provided.
That brief did present information on a number of issues. The first was fish habitat and the Fisheries Act. We believe the act should be amended to accord with today's reality and to promote rationalization with provincial regulatory systems. The absolute approach to habitat protection policy that is current with the act and with the department is not consistent with the concepts of integrated resource management and sustainable development.
There is uncertainty in the application of fish habitat provisions. Under section 35 of the act, authorizations are required to make any alteration in fish habitat, and there's a great deal of uncertainty about when authorization is required. That uncertainty deters investment and complicates environmental assessment.
Section 35 acts as a trigger to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. At present, since the requirement for an authorization is not clear-cut, proponents may have to wait for months until the department makes up its mind that an authorization is required. That slows down the whole process. There is also duplication and inconsistency between different federal agencies in the application of the act.
.1115
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is our second issue. The act has greatly increased federal involvement in the permitting of mining projects. Integration with provincial assessment processes is still illusive, but it's necessary. Because of CEAA's complexity, federal processes are more cumbersome and uncertain than their provincial counterparts. Cost recovery from proponents will increase the burden of duplication.
CEAA has no mechanism to encourage timeliness and efficiency within the federal government. There should be a regulation binding on federal departments to ensure timeliness and clarity in their decisions. There is little harmonization of approach within the federal government. Each department interprets CEAA in its own way. As well, the cumulative effects provisions of CEAA appear to be impracticable.
The third general area is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We made several comments in our earlier brief, as the government was considering its response to the report of the Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The government has now tabled its response, and legislative amendments will be proposed. Today we have also tabled with you a brief that offers detailed comments on the government's response to the committee's review of CEPA. Time doesn't permit us to go through those with you in detail, but we would appreciate your reviewing the document on CEPA and taking our comments, which are in that document, into account in your own deliberations on regulatory reform.
Fourth, land use issues: A lack of coordination still exists within and between governments on protected areas initiatives. Industry feels that there is an inadequate scientifically based rationale for the selection of potential protected areas and the design of decision-making processes. This unsatisfactory situation has been made potentially worse by the existence of two apparently uncoordinated legislative initiatives at the federal level regarding endangered species.
The Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Sergio Marchi, and his predecessor, the Hon. Sheila Copps, have been working on the development of federal endangered species legislation. Multi-stakeholder consultations have been going on for some time on the government's proposals. The mining industry is represented by our association on the endangered species task force, which comprises membership representatives of many groups, including other industrial sectors such as pulp and paper, agriculture, fisheries, and petroleum. It also includes members of various environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Animal Alliance, Island Nature Trust, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation. The academic community is represented by biology professors from the University of Alberta and l'université Laval.
In addition to attending many public consultation sessions and meetings with provincial and federal officials, the members of the task force have met numerous times in 1995 to try to come to a common understanding of the best mechanisms to protect, conserve, and restore endangered and vulnerable species in Canada.
Now it appears as if these efforts may not come to fruition because of private member's bill C-238, on protection of endangered species. Prior to the last prorogation of Parliament, the bill had passed second reading and was being referred to the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. It was our understanding at that time that the committee would not proceed with reviewing the bill, in deference to the Minister of the Environment's own efforts in that area.
The Speech from the Throne promised endangered species legislation during this government's term of office, and we look forward to working with the Minister of the Environment on that issue. However, we want to express grave concerns in regard to the existence of Bill C-238. We believe that consideration should be given exclusively to the initiative of the Minister of the Environment.
.1120
Industry would find it difficult to understand if two parallel tracks were followed. This is clearly wasteful of government's scarce resources. Moreover, if Bill C-238 takes precedence, without benefit of all the consultations that have gone on on the minister's initiative, all those consultations to date would be ignored or pre-empted and our efforts would be lost.
Mr. Chairman, the next general section of our submission deals with the review of your committee's interim report.
We certainly feel your report admirably captured the issues that face our industry. We appreciate the overall approach taken by the committee and we have no specific comments on a number of your recommendations. They seem to stand on their own and we agree fully with them. I've listed those in the written version: recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 15. We do have a few comments on other recommendations, the ones that are not on that list.
About recommendation 8, consistency in applying the no-net-loss policy for fish habitat would be helpful, as you recommended, especially if augmented by regulations and guidelines for smaller, repetitive activities. However, we don't think that goes far enough. We think the policy itself needs to be reviewed.
Just for background, this is a policy that there should be no net loss in fish habitat. This is a policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. According to my understanding, it has never been reviewed by cabinet. Yet it has the most profound implications for economic development in Canada.
We think that policy needs to get a thorough review by all ministers, because it's an absolute approach. It's not consistent with integrated resource management. In our view, it's not consistent with sustainable development.
Our second comment on your report is recommendation 9. The delegation of freshwater fish habitat provisions is an excellent goal you've recommended. However, the habitat provisions need to be made workable, especially in their relation with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, whichever level of government is involved.
On recommendation 10, we continue to believe an absolute prohibition on depositing substances in fish habitat waters, except as provided by regulations, creates the wrong onus and it represents an outright and unnecessary duplication of provincial environmental regulations. That refers to section 36 of the Fisheries Act.
Our fourth comment is on your recommendations 11 and 12, which deal with the metal mining liquid effluent regulations. The results of the multi-stakeholder cooperative AQUAMIN project will offer scientifically valid guidance on the future of the metal mining liquid effluent regulations. So long as the government requires such regulations under section 36 of the Fisheries Act, we will ask the government to adopt the AQUAMIN recommendations. Provincial involvement in AQUAMIN we hope will also ensure consistency with federal action.
The AQUAMIN project is a combined process where the industry, the government, and environmental groups have agreed to examine the effectiveness of the existing regulations and to determine whether changes are necessary to protect the environment. We're part of that process and we're going to support the results even if they require a tightening of regulations. So we are committed to supporting those recommendations to the government. But even if those recommendations are adopted, certain administrative aspects, including reporting, monitoring, and enforcement, still require to be harmonized with the provinces.
We would look for your support of the AQUAMIN project. We hope it will be adopted in its entirety.
.1125
In recommendation 11 of your last report, the reference to background levels of metals in water should probably be read to apply to water quality objectives rather than to standards for effluent composition.
That's quite a lot for you to swallow in terms of the technical aspects of your last recommendations, but I think if you compare this text with the text of your last report, it will be a little easier to grasp what we're getting at.
Our next section deals with the Speech from the Throne. The recent Speech from the Throne opening the new session of Parliament had many interesting features. For one thing, it reinforced the government's commitment to regulatory reform. Our industry sincerely hopes that this commitment will lead to tangible outcomes in the near future.
The speech also repeated a theme that has been familiar since the days of the Charlottetown accord, namely the readiness of the federal government to relinquish to the provinces any responsibility for the management of natural resources, including mining. To the extent that this commitment would result in more effective government at lower cost, the mining industry would support any such rationalization. However, we believe that except for uranium, there may be little real scope for such improvement.
Let's talk about uranium for a moment. The federal government has retained certain responsibilities for uranium mining, which is a hold-over from the national security concerns of the war years. This policy does lead to federal activity in certain areas which, in the case of other commodities, are left entirely to the provinces. Thus, there is federal involvement in such matters as occupational health and safety in uranium mines, largely duplicating the work of provincial authorities and provincial inspectors.
A memorandum of understanding was reached several years ago to coordinate the two levels, but in the view of mining executives involved, the MOU is largely a paper exercise with little real effect on duplication. Industry would support any initiative by the federal government to withdraw from uranium mining.
In other respects, however, federal activities, and specifically those of the Department of Natural Resources, do not - and I repeat not - duplicate the work of provincial mines departments. There's a very clear distinction between what's done at the provincial level and what's done at the federal level.
There's a distinct role for the provinces in managing mineral rights and regulating the safe operation of mines. This is the essence of natural resources administration and it is not duplicated at the federal level, except in the case of federal territories north of 60 degrees and other federal lands. That in itself is not a duplication because the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over Indian lands and in the two territories.
Outside the direct management and administration of natural resources, there are many federal responsibilities that bear critically on the mining industry. These responsibilities include economic management, fiscal and monetary policy, transportation, science and technology, taxation, international trade, foreign relations including international environmental agreements, and participation in international institutions such as the United Nations and its various agencies and the OECD. Although that is a long list, it's only a partial list. There are many federal responsibilities that do affect our industry.
To carry out all of these responsibilities with due regard for the impact of federal policies on the mining industry requires the government to have a centre of mineral expertise, and this is located in the Department of Natural Resources.
Some federal science and technology activities may appear to parallel those of provincial governments, including geological surveys and mineral science laboratories. It appears that in recent years federal and provincial officials have coordinated their activities in such a way that duplication has been virtually eliminated, even in those areas that appear very similar in the two levels.
The Mining Association of Canada has surveyed senior provincial mines officials as to the degree to which they feel that federal services related to mining duplicate provincial services. In no case did a provincial official cite an example of duplication or overlap. Environmental management, on the other hand, was and is seen as the major area of duplication between the two levels of government.
.1130
The last major section of our brief deals with the economic development of rural areas.
Mining is one of the mainstays of the economy in rural Canada. Those who live in urban centres seem to have forgotten Canada's economic history and ignore the fact that natural resources support the livelihoods of those who live in rural areas and it still provides the bulk of our country's export earnings.
Mining supports the economies of some 150 communities across Canada. The industry employs over 80,000 Canadians in mines, mills, and smelters located in those communities. Well over 300,000 additional jobs are provided by downstream industries using metals and minerals. Mineral products constitute around 60% of the tonnage shipped on Canadian railways and loaded in Canadian ports.
These are impressive statistics, but mining remains the invisible industry to most Canadians living in big cities. This is true even for places such as Toronto and Vancouver, whose financial markets thrive by raising mining capital for the world. It's ironic that opposition to certain mining developments has been led by apparently well-financed groups based in these same cities.
Rural Canadians have been frustrated by this situation. Perhaps that's why the Keep Mining in Canada campaign has received such enthusiastic support. Mine managers, supplier companies and their employees, municipalities, and just plain citizens have rallied to the campaign and have demanded that governments work to ease the unnecessary burden on the natural resource industries, and specifically mining.
I hope later in your deliberations in this session you will have an opportunity at your hearings to review the work of Keep Mining in Canada. I think you'll be impressed with how that has grasped the attention of people in mining communities.
In conclusion, this submission has covered a good deal of ground. In an attempt to assist new committee members to become familiar with the issues we've presented a fast and general review at this time. We've not attempted to provide a list of very detailed recommendations. Most of our earlier recommendations still stand. Others are contained in the companion piece on CEPA, which I mentioned and which is included in our hand-outs to you.
As your deliberations proceed, you will hear from several government departments and from other interest groups. We would appreciate an opportunity to appear again towards the end of your hearings, since other testimony you hear in the meantime may raise further questions you want to address to us. At that time we could assist you with some very specific recommendations directed to your particular interests at that time.
We thank you again for the opportunity to appear, and we would welcome your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
I'll call on Mr. Canuel to begin the questioning.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): I'm very pleased to hear you mention economic development in rural Canada, especially in the mining industry. It is true that it is extremely important to look after environment, and I agree that we should take all possible measures in order to protect it.
I would like to come back to what you said about rural Canada. Where I'm from, on the North Shore, Duplessis sold minerals at one cent per tonne and ghost towns were created. Today, those towns unfortunately have been abandoned or are nearly deserted. Our natural resources were squandered. We can never talk enough about rural Canada and changes that must take place. I would like to thank you for having raised that point. We should dwell upon it.
You also mentioned the Speech from the Throne. Mention was made in it that the mining and forestry aspects of natural resources would be devolved to the provinces.
.1135
I think that is fantastic, but on one condition, and correct me if I do not tell the whole truth. If we hand these over to the provinces, but without providing the necessary funds, I don't know how we will be able to both protect the environment and create jobs in rural Canada in particular.
You also mentioned duplication. You brought up this point again and again. Could you give us a few concrete examples if you have the time? I too have seen for a number of years that there is an enormous amount of duplication. Quite often we step on each other's feet and it might be good if you could present the committee with some concrete facts. Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. Miller: The situation you describe where mines come and go is a factor that we have to take seriously into account. Today every possible effort is being made by mining companies to make sure that technically mines that are completed, whose life is over, are left in a condition that is safe environmentally.
We also have to concern ourselves with the populations left in mining communities when the mine closes.
Our association has recently promoted the establishment of a joint body with the labour movement that would allow for the training of individuals, both to perform their job functions more effectively and also to provide them with skills that will help them adjust to new employment situations in other locations as they are left without mining employment.
So efforts are being made to address the issues that you raise as to the transitory nature of some mining operations.
With respect to giving the administration of natural resources to the provinces, our position is that there is nothing to give. The administration of mineral resources is already with the provinces.
It's very difficult to find an example where the federal government could stop doing any of the policy work with respect to natural resources that it is now doing. As long as the federal government continues to have international responsibilities, many of the actions that it is taking internationally will have an impact on the mining industry. We need policy experts in Ottawa at the Department of Natural Resources to deal with those issues, and all the other issues in the areas I mentioned.
In our view this point was well covered in the discussions around the Charlottetown accord. We made a number of submissions at that time, and we're consistent in saying that we believe that the current arrangements will not, and should not, be changed very much.
As far as duplication with the provinces is concerned, I will mention only two instances. I'll allow my colleague to step in with others if she wishes to do so.
The very existence of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is a duplication of provincial processes as far as our industry is concerned. Efforts are being made to harmonize the federal act with provincial acts. Bilateral agreements are being signed with certain provinces, but in our view those agreements don't go far enough to guarantee that one of the objectives of the Whitehorse Mining Initiative will be fulfilled. That objective calls for a single process led by a single lead agency that will examine the environmental impact of a proposed mining project and make a recommendation that will satisfy all the required authorities.
.1140
In other words, we don't need two processes and we don't need harmonized processes. We need a single process that allows the federal and provincial governments to make the necessary decisions. That's my first example.
By the way, I should point out before I leave the Whitehorse Mining Initiative that if you consult the booklet I left with the clerk, that principle was subscribed to by the environmental groups working with the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. In other words, environmental groups saw that there were problems in two processes working at the same time and possibly duplicating the costs and lengthening the time of environmental approvals.
My second example of duplication is the operations of section 36 of the Fisheries Act, under which regulations are required before a mine can deposit its effluent in any waters. There would be no need for the federal regulations if section 36 did not exist. As it is now, the regulation is required in order to allow the mine to operate. With no regulation, section 36 would absolutely prohibit the deposition of any material in fish habitat waters. So in that sense, the regulation is necessary, but the act is faulty. This is a direct duplication of essentially the same effluent controls administered by the provinces.
The Chairman: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): I have a few questions here.
I want you to all understand that I know you feel despondent about what happens in this committee in regard to our recommendations in the mining industry. If you think you feel despondent, I wish you could feel what some of us feel over here after working the many hours that we did work in regard to this and seeing it basically put on hold. I could use stronger language than ``despondent'', only I won't today.
I have some concerns regarding a letter that was addressed to Mr. Donald Campbell, the Canadian ambassador to Japan. It states in that letter that the Japanese did a study in regard to mining investment and future mining investment here in Canada. My understanding is this is not looked upon by the Japanese as a favourable country at this point in time for investment in mining, and that creates a grave concern, especially to a number of Canadian communities that depend upon mining, and I say both rural and urban, depending upon it. That is one area. I'd like it if you could follow up on that letter in regard to the Japanese investment.
To follow up on mining, I have some concerns. When a mine comes into existence, during the exploration time of that mining, in order to make it feasible and to prove feasibility, normally the expectation of the life of that mine is given. I hear concerns from people saying when a mine closes the town dies. The other side of that coin is when you go in to start a business or live in that mining community, you already know beforehand the expectation of that mine, and when the mineral's gone, the mineral's gone.
So we come into the reclamation of mining properties. I would suggest to anybody sitting on this natural resources committee to go out and see what is really being done in regard to reclamation and mining. I'll use the example of Brenda Mines, a little bit outside of my constituency, which shut down. Here's an area that will be put to use by the city of Kelowna either by holding water for the city in the open pit or as an industrial site to put business out there. Many mines are doing this - in fact, just about all of them are now - in the reclamation area.
.1145
Also, I'd like to come back to section 36. We had a potential mine in British Columbia shut down after it had been signed off by the province. By this I mean the province had given it a total, 100% go-ahead. We're talking about 150 jobs here, a $500 million project, put on hold because of this federal overlap. The federal group went in there, after this was all signed off by the province, and decided it would put this mine on hold because of a few fish that are not on the endangered species list by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, it was also offered to the federal department that the mine would absorb the cost of moving these fish - I'm talking about eighteen fish here - to a lake that would well sustain their livelihood. The question was not even asked or put forward by the federal government why only eighteen fish were left in this lake in the first place, and what happened to the rest of them.
I would also like to know if you've heard anything further about that situation in British Columbia.
Mr. Miller: Thanks, Mr. Stinson.
I'm aware of the concern expressed by Japanese interests about the Canadian regulatory system. Recently we received in our office two thick reports from the Japan metal mining agency. I think those are the reports you mentioned. Unfortunately I haven't had an opportunity to study them, but one of my colleagues told me the studies go through the regulatory system in some detail, without really making firm conclusions as to whether it's good or bad. I think it's left to the reader to judge the thickness of the report and see whether he considers it a good situation.
On this same subject, I would like to ask Mr. Stan to contribute something. Dealing with the Japanese at the international level almost on a daily basis, he could contribute some views, I think.
Mr. Robert H. Stan (Director, Coal Marketing, Coal Association of Canada): I should say my information on this particular subject is largely anecdotal. I don't deal directly with the Japanese people who have written the letter. But certainly I can say the subject has come up more than once, and I think their frustrations are the same as what we're hearing expressed this morning by the mining association. They simply want some consistency and some assurance that the system is working in an appropriate manner. The conversations I've had with them indicate that they think the overlapping and the duplication give them some concern about the viability of investing in the long term. There are other administrations in other areas of the world, obviously, where they have these same kinds of concerns. But in the Canadian context I've heard them express these views more than once.
Mr. Stinson: What I've heard, and what I've been finding out, is that in other parts of the world these concerns are the same, but they're addressed a heck of a lot quicker than they are here in Canada.
Ms Justyna Laurie-Lean (Vice-President, Environment and Health, Mining Association of Canada): I want to follow on from what George said. I think the most frustrating thing for us is not just the duplication between the federal and the provincial systems but the disorganization and duplication within the federal system. The instance you mention is not unusual. One of the hardest things for our members to do is to get the federal environmental assessment process started, because they cannot get an answer from Fisheries and Oceans on whether or not an authorization will be required.
Definitely, something has to be done about subsection 35.(2) as a trigger for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Companies cannot act on a letter that says ``maybe'', because that is just not functional.
We had a promise, and it was incorporated directly into amendments to CEAA, that there would be an effort to do one project under one assessment. That has not been acted on. There is no operation of that to ensure departments are forced to answer whether or not they're participating, to talk to one another, to coordinate, to set some kind of reasonable timeframe. So the big problem has just been getting into the process and estimating when you're going to come out of it at the end.
.1150
Mr. Miller: I think Mr. Stinson has provided a good example of where, for some reason, provincial approval is not regarded as sufficiently protective of the environment or that it deals with some areas such that the federal authorities have to say they're not satisfied and they're holding this up until they are satisfied. That's exactly the kind of situation we're meeting across the country.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stinson. Mr. Serré.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): First of all, I'd like to thank the Mining Association of Canada for appearing before this committee. We've had the occasion to meet many times in the last four or five years.
The gist of my question has already been addressed partly, but in my dealings with the industry in the last four or five years I've noticed, as you both mention, that there's not only duplication between the provinces and the federal government, but duplication and a lack of cohesion within the federal government.
I can give you an example: you decide to start a mining project and you need a permit from Fisheries and Oceans. You're just about ready to go and all of a sudden the coast guard decides they need to give you a permit also. I agree with you that there's not much we can give to the provinces insofar as the policies and the taxation in international trade of natural resources in this country, but I think there's room for a lot of movement on the regulation and permit-granting process.
I can't understand for the life of me why any project, whether it's mining or forestry, would need a permit from the coast guard to try to cross a small eight-foot creek. It's non-navigable water. I think the federal government should completely get out of inland water management except for the Great Lakes.
In the last budget on the cultural side we decided to set up a single inspection agency for food that would report to Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, etc. I'd like to have your views on setting up a similar agency at the federal level, where a proponent of a mining project would go and say ``We want to start this project. Here's our business plan, our closing plan'' - whatever. This agency would be mandated to first of all ask different departments if they have an interest in it, whether it's Fisheries and Oceans or NRCan or Indian Affairs or whatever, and give them a specific timetable. They would say ``This is the project. You have three months to respond to show if you have an interest and if we don't have a response within three months it's deemed you have no interest and we can issue the licensing and the permit.'' The whole idea would be to speed up the permitting process.
I know for a fact that in Mexico they have quite a few protected areas. I agree with that concept; it's something we should maintain in this country also. The goal I think is 12% in this country, and I agree with that, but let's do it so that people know where they are. But in Mexico you don't go and explore in those areas because you know you're not going to get a permit. You don't spend $100 million. What's happening here in Canada is we go and explore somewhere and all of a sudden the province or the federal government decide they want a park there. They move the goal posts after you've spent $100 million, and I don't think that's fair.
In Mexico, it takes about three to six months to get approval for a project. Here, it takes anywhere between two and ten years. I'd like to know your views on setting up such a federal agency and how it would work, according to the industry.
Mr. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Serré. I think you've raised two points: one is predictability with respect to land use rules, and the other is predictability and timeliness regarding environmental assessments. All I can do is to say I agree with both the points you've made.
We believe there should be a single lead agency that can call on all the interested departments and get a result. I think we would go further and say that lead agency should represent all legitimate federal interests and all legitimate provincial interests. There should be one process, and within that process there should be discipline and timeliness and good order in carrying out the process.
.1155
Justyna, you may want to comment.
Ms Laurie-Lean: I'd like to explain why industry had not pushed for such a central agency initially. There was concern that with a central agency there could be too much distance, that the agency could be too isolated from the real world. Having seen the practice of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, I think even an isolated agency would be an improvement over no answer.
I think there is already a beginning of that in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It would require changing its role and its authority somewhat. There may also need to be provisions for particular industries or areas. For example, in the north, the Department of Indian Affairs is already acting as a central agency. I understand that it does a fairly good job of coordinating the other departments. Where the Atomic Energy Control Board is active, they become the focus.
It is for the non-uranium, non-petroleum industries in the provinces that do not have a single department as the regulator where we run into the problem of the coast guard, the Department of Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That is where a lead agency would be very helpful and would allow the harmonization agreements with the provinces to actually work. Right now, it's harmonized at one end only.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Committee members, we have another witness. I'm trying to be finished here by noon, so we have four minutes and I have two more people who want to ask questions. I would ask you to put them very quickly and concisely, or perhaps we'll save them for some other time.
Mr. Thalheimer (Timmins - Chapleau): Mr. Miller, we're talking about the administration of the management of resources. You say there's not much duplication with the federal government there anyway. Then there's environmental management, which you're saying the duplication is really all about.
I would think that each province has different environmental standards, but environment crosses provinces and borders. What would your thoughts be if the federal government were solely in charge of environmental regulations throughout? What if the provinces got out of it and left the administrative management of natural resources up to someone else? What if they just let one department, like the federal government, do the environmental requirements for the country? Would that be workable or do you see problems there?
Mr. Miller: I think it might be better than what we have now, but I do see a few problems. I think there are some aspects of environmental management that legitimately belong at each level of government.
The point is that the federal government is not limiting itself to the ones in which it really has a legitimate interest. It is surely only the federal government that can make international agreements. It is only the federal government that can afford a national centre of excellence in environmental science. Those kinds of things are legitimately done by the federal government and should be done by the federal government, and the federal government should apply its resources to doing them well.
However, when it comes to site-specific regulation, the provinces are going to be in that in many respects. They're going to regulate the performance of the mine in terms of health; they're going to regulate it in terms of safety, engineering standards, land use, and mineral rights. They also issue a certificate of authorization for any industrial operation, which has certain conditions attached to it. Some of those conditions protect the environment.
There is a legitimate role at the site level. Depending on the site conditions, you may need different effluent standards. In order to protect the environment, there may be some variation from one site to another across the country. This is okay. We're not insisting on the uniformity of standards; we're interested in protecting the environment in whatever way is needed under the conditions.
.1200
In an arid climate, the conditions are different from what they are in a situation of high rainfall. So you might not have equal standards between northern Quebec and central B.C., but the basic environmental quality objectives can be established by the federal government or by the federal government in cooperation with the provinces so that we have a uniformly high degree of environmental protection. But site-specific regulations should be left to the provinces.
Mr. Thalheimer: The federal government could still do the site-specific -
The Chairman: We have to move on. Marlene, do you have a short question?
Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): Yes, I have two very short questions.
First, could you give us some very concrete examples on how the present system impacts on the mining industry?
This is my second question. I am from a rural constituency. It borders on Saskatchewan, which is one of the leading areas for uranium. You mentioned the mining industry's desire to see the federal government get out of the regulatory aspects of uranium mining. I wonder if you could expand on that.
If you can't do that verbally because of the timeframe, then perhaps we could have that response to the committee in writing. I think that's very vital to this committee.
The Chairman: I think so, particularly in view of what took place in the House this morning. That might be very timely if you could make a submission specifically on uranium mining and the federal regulations. A letter to us would certainly be appreciated.
Mr. Miller: Maybe I could just deal very briefly with the uranium issue. My understanding is that in 1942 the federal government stepped into the control of uranium in order to facilitate the scientific work around weapons and also to make sure that the security of information was maintained and so on, because it was a very critical time. There is also the aspect of radiation protection, which is largely the responsibility of a federal agency, the Atomic Energy Control Board. So in that sense, there is a kind of federal role.
But because the federal government took responsibility for all aspects of the nuclear cycle, including mining, it then said that it needed to regulate the safety and health of miners. However, the provinces are also doing that. So there is direct duplication in that area, which is totally unnecessary.
It would be quite possible for the provincial governments to apply federal radiation protection standards and at the same time apply the normal standards of health and safety regulations, which is common to all mines. There's nothing special about uranium mines when it comes to health and safety, with the sole exception of radiation. Even in other sorts of mines, radiation levels also need to be regulated, but the federal government doesn't have a role there.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. I very much appreciated the time you've taken, and that of your organization, to once again brief the committee. We look forward to working with you in the months ahead. I was particularly pleased to see your comments on rural economic development. I hope we have an opportunity in the not-too-distant future to explore that particular subject in some more detail with you. So thank you very much. We very much appreciate it.
Mr. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I'd like to now call on our next set of witnesses. They're from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Welcome, Mr. Beaubier and Mr. Barnett. I assume you have a brief statement in advance. Then I'm sure the committee members would have some questions. So if you'd like to proceed, we look forward to hearing from you.
.1205
Mr. Hiram Beaubier (Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Hiram Beaubier, director general of the natural resources and environment branch with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Martin Barnett is senior mining adviser on minerals and the environment.
I want to leave with you today, in terms of our presentation, an understanding of the unique role that Northern Affairs plays in the mining business north of 60 to highlight for you very briefly the changes that are under way in the north as a result of land claims and my bearing on the regulatory management of the industry. I'll briefly touch on the devolution matters of transferrals from federal-provincial responsibilities.
Our presentation deals virtually exclusively with north of 60. There are no specific provisions in the Indian Act or the Indian mining regulations to deal with the issues of environmental management on Indian reserves. That, therefore, is done under other statutes, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The regulatory regime north of 60 is one of six regulatory issues the government has flagged for improvement. Others are the administration of the Fisheries Act; land use and related decision-making; definition of waste; regulatory impact analysis; and toxics management.
In order to put this presentation in appropriate context, it is necessary to outline the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in general terms, and then focus on how we develop and deliver the environmental regulation of mining. It is intended today to outline how we see the regime changing fundamentally in Yukon and the Northwest Territories as we approach the division of the Northwest Territories and the creation of Nunavut in 1999 and as we implement the provisions of several different northern land claims.
It is our perception from working with northern chambers of mines that the mining industry is fully supportive of the need for environmental regulation, particularly where it is clear, technically feasible and fair. As you heard from the Mining Association of Canada, they become more animated in relation to the complexity, overlaps and lack of rigorous timeframes imposed within the regulatory environmental assessment process.
Many concerns relate to the lack of certainty. If the rules are unclear and the duration of the game is not specified, it is difficult to develop an effective game plan. Hence, it is important to remember that the mining industry is looking for an efficiency of regulation and assessment, not laissez-faire deregulation.
Much is made in national debate of the desirability of the concept of one window for delivering regulatory functions. We in DIAND not only have the legislative responsibility, but we also have the processes to operate that window.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible for coordinating the federal presence in the Northwest Territories and Yukon as set out in the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act. The federal Crown still owns most of the minerals in the north. It assesses and collects and, when mandated to do so by recent land claims, arranges the distribution of royalties to each particular claimant.
The minister of DIAND has responsibility for the management of mineral resources in Yukon under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, and in the Northwest Territories under the Territorial Lands Act and the supporting regulations, the Canada mining regulations. Mineral rights are regulated through respective mining recorders in the north and are broadly similar to those governing mining in the provinces.
The two territories comprise 40% of Canada's land mass. This vast area contains a wide variety of geological environments with enormous mineral potential. Infrastructure for the northern mining industry is in an early stage of development, however. Much of the mineral potential remains to be identified by exploration and subsequent development in an environmentally acceptable manner for the benefit of Canadians in general and northerners in particular.
Only a few years ago, no serious thought was given to diamond mining, how a diamond mine might develop or the need for it to be environmentally regulated. Now it is the mining activity with the most potential for jobs, revenues and taxes. Diamond mining areas around the world are not noted for being problem-plagued environmentally, and there is no reason to anticipate that the Canadian scene will be different.
We recognize that the mining industry has become a user of high-tech applications in almost all aspects, from exploration to increasingly sophisticated waste management and monitoring systems. In part this is simply to increase the likelihood of finding new mines and in part responding to, or even anticipating, more sophisticated regulatory environments.
.1210
I will address the environmental regulation of mining in two phases. The first is the environmental assessment process, and the second is the actual acts and regulations and their application to mining.
Assessment is carried out under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was only recently brought into force. It replaces the environmental assessment and review process guidelines order, which had the force of law of general application. The change is sufficiently recent that some mining projects, notably the BHP Diamond project, are still being processed under the EARP guideline order.
As you are probably aware, the panel has recently concluded its hearings in Yellowknife and is now formulating its recommendations on the BHP Diamond project. As I mentioned, that's under the EARP guideline order as opposed to CEAA.
Under CEAA, applications for permits, licences, or leases administered by DIAND, or those issued by the territorial water boards on behalf of DIAND's minister, trigger environmental assessments, most of which are done by DIAND.
Nationally, more than 40% of all federal environmental screenings are conducted by DIAND. There are two levels of screening. At level one the project description is circulated for comment among interested parties and the screening is conducted by the resource manager. At level two the more formal regional environmental review committee, which includes other federal and territorial representatives and aboriginal groups, makes the assessment. This includes a consultative process. Almost all screening decisions are made by DIAND. Others are conducted by the water board.
It is when impacts unmitigated by unknown technologies or unknown impacts are identified or significant public concern is experienced that a recommendation to the minister of DIAND to refer the project to the Minister of the Environment for a panel review may occur.
Only two mine proposals, both in the Northwest Territories, have taken this route to date. One was the Kiggavik uranium mine near Baker Lake. The other, of course, is the BHP project.
Generally, no time lines for lower-level assessment are set out by regulation, although some consideration is being given as CEAA regulations are contemplated by the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment may choose to set a timeframe for the completion of the panel review.
Once environmental assessment has been completed and the mining project is cleared for continuation, the regulatory regime assumes responsibility for ensuring that all regulations are complied with and appropriate recommendations of the environmental assessment are incorporated in permits and licences.
The management of water resources is achieved through the Yukon Waters Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act, both of which came into force in 1983. Both replaced the former Northern Inland Waters Act, and there was a splitting of that legislation at that time.
Each act establishes a water board to conduct public hearings when necessary and to issue water licences. The boards have authority to require security deposits as conditions of licence. The purpose is to enable the federal government to remedy any adverse affects that may have arisen from failure to comply with water licence conditions and operator failure to remedy the situation. As water licences for mines come up for renewal, amounts of security are reviewed carefully.
The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is to prevent the unauthorized depositing of waste into the Arctic Ocean. It would govern seabed mining or mining where mining discharge is contemplated. Waste deposits would also be controlled through regulation.
The Territorial Lands Act provides for the authorization and regulation of the use, sale, lease, or any other disposition of federal lands under the control of the minister of DIAND in the north. Over 90% of the lands in the north are under the control of the minister of DIAND.
Five sets of regulations are relevant to mining: the Canada mining regulations, territorial coal regulations, territorial quarrying regulations, territorial land use regulations, and the territorial land regulations. The mining regulations are to administer the claims-staking and related work in the Northwest Territories, with such activities being authorized by the quartz and placer acts in the Yukon. The coal regulations relate to coal extraction, and quarrying regulations relate to the development of granule resources. The land use regulations are for control of short-term mining activities, and land regulations provide for the long-term leasing of lands.
.1215
I would now like to turn to the substantial and still evolving changes under way. Of the two kinds, the profound and fundamental ones are those relating to the legislation arising from aboriginal land claims, and secondly those intended to modernize the legislation and address administrative issues.
Turning to the latter first, in Yukon a draft bill has been prepared and is indeed before the House now to enable the introduction of mining land use regulations and mine site reclamation regulations to better control environmental aspects of mining under both the quartz and placer mining acts. In the NWT the Canada mining regulations are proposed to be amended to better regulate the tax treatment of funds set aside for mine site reclamation as well as other changes not related to environmental matters.
Five acts have been passed relating to land claims in the north. These are the Gwich'in Land Claim Settlement Act, the Nunavut Land Claims Settlement Act, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act, and the Sahtu Land Claims Settlement Act. The claimant groups have been granted ownership of some 550,000 square kilometres of land, some of which include subsurface rights.
To give force and effect to these agreements, other legislation has been drafted that will introduce fundamental changes in the way in which northern resources are managed and regulated. These are the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Nunavut Resource Management Act, and the Yukon Development Assessment Process Act. Region-specific surface rights legislation is also being enacted for the resolution of disputes between surface and subsurface owners.
I would just interject here that since we wrote this the Yukon surface rights legislation has indeed been passed. Yet to come are the other surface rights acts.
The approach advanced under this legislation is generally by joint government-claimant group institutions of public government with guaranteed minimum representation from each claimant group. While laws of general application will continue to set out the rules under which mining will occur, the licences and permits along with the operating terms and conditions will be developed by the joint boards specific to each settlement area.
Where there's a requirement for mitigative measures and impact reviews, recommendations will generally be made to appropriate ministers for decision-making. For all claims, environmental assessment is carried out under legislation developed specifically for the total area.
In the Western Arctic Inuvialuit settlement region, the Environmental Impact Screening Committee and the Environmental Impact Review Board have been in operation since 1986. In Yukon, a Yukon-specific process called the development assessment process is anticipated. In the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie Valley will be handled by the Environmental Impact Review Board, and in Nunavut it will be the Nunavut Impact Review Board. These new aspects of public government will be put in place beginning in 1996. That's specifically for the Mackenzie Valley and the Nunavut. We will not have in place the Yukon DAP process by 1996.
It has to be emphasized that the changes arising from land claims are of unprecedented proportions. Such changes are mandated by existing legislation as well as legislation under development. It will provide opportunities for innovation, but it must be acknowledged that apprehension and some uncertainties will still be present. Implementation of new systems will inevitably manifest growing pains for both the regulator and the regulatee, and the major transition outline will prove challenging to manage.
However, the business of mining continues and is on an upswing in the north, so we have to proceed with the more routine legislative and regulatory changes outlined above to better serve the needs of the industry and the Crown.
As we in DIAND work through the changes to how environmental assessment is conducted, we are striving for an outcome of one project, one assessment, and all efforts are being made to streamline the processes. It will be critical for industry to become quickly familiar with the new legislation being implemented under claims.
It will take patience and goodwill by everyone to make the introduction of these new processes as smooth as possible. This means building bridges to first nations and taking full account of their interests and concerns early in the planning processes. This way the regulatory processes will flow more smoothly and timely decisions will follow.
.1220
That concludes what I've presented here in written form. I will just add that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a policy of moving the provincial types of programs to the north and at a point in time the responsibilities for mining will fall to the two territorial governments.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that presentation, Mr. Beaubier.
Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: You mentioned north of 60. My question is the following. Are there special environmental standards north of 60? You said on the first page of your text:
- Nonetheless, industry is much less conciliatory in relation to the complexity, overlap and lack
of rigorous time frame imposed within the regulatory process...
- It is important to remember that the mining industry is looking for efficiency of regulation and
assessment.
[English]
Mr. Beaubier: I should begin by clarifying that indeed a significant portion of Quebec that is north of 60 is not included in our set of responsibilities. Our responsibilities are related to the Northwest Territories and Yukon. So that's a clarification of my presentation.
With respect to the efficiencies, we see significant advantages. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a legislative mandate to coordinate with other federal departments in the north, and we put mechanisms into place to do that.
I spoke about the environmental assessment and review committee. It's a committee comprised of all the federal departments that have an interest in project development environmental assessment in the north. It brings in the territorial government and aboriginal groups.
They will make the assessments with respect to what the collective interests of a particular project are. They will help make the decision on whether it will be assessed further or whether it will go into the regulatory stream. If it goes into the regulatory stream, then a lot of the provisions with respect to the concerns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are actually reflected in the permits and the conditions that are issued for the project, such as a water licence. The concerns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would be reflected in the water licence. So you have a single regulatory institution bringing all those concerns to focus on one document.
We would issue the land use permit or the land lease. Again, if concerns are surfaced by other federal departments, then they would be reflected in that certificate, be it a land use permit or a land lease.
I must admit that there is a point of departure when we talk about enforcement issues, and there a decision is made somewhat independently as to whether there's an issue of enforcement that a department might want to take. There's good consultation on enforcement issues, but ultimately that decision will fall back to the single department for it to make.
Mr. Stinson: On the second page you mention that many of the concerns relate to the lack of certainty. You go on to mention the rules, and then you go on to say that DIAND has the legislated responsibility and the staffing to address this issue.
Do you have the staffing in place now, or will you have to hire more people? How many more would that be? What are we looking at here?
Mr. Beaubier: Right now we have the staff in place to manage the provisions of the legislation that currently exist. With the proposed amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, we're going to have to hire more staff to take care of that extra work, because we'll be bringing into regulatory control a whole range of properties that weren't there before. Approximately 800 to 1,200 new properties will be brought under environmental regulations, and we will need staff for that. Anything that is currently operating we're doing within existing staffing, and we don't need any extra resources for that.
.1225
If I can use the example of placer mining, this of course is of extreme interest to the Department of Fisheries, because there's usually a discharge. We have collaborated with the Department of Fisheries, coming out with a single guideline on the regulation of placer relative to water quality and fisheries, which is then passed to the water board. The water board then includes all of those concerns in its water licence, and there's a single inspection by our department.
When we look at the property, we do so both from the Fisheries perspective and from our departmental perspective. We go back to Fisheries and let them know, and if they have further concerns, then they may well go out on their own.
Mr. Stinson: Will you be looking at yourselves, or are you now set up as the final board of appeal?
Mr. Beaubier: Under the existing legislation, under the territorial land use regulations there is an appeal to the minister for decisions that are made by the inspectors or other officers in the field, and under the proposed Yukon Quartz Mining Act amendments there's an appeal to an administrative level, the chief of mining, and there's appeal beyond that to the minister with respect to any decisions or orders given.
There are no appeals specifically under the territorial land regulations, but those are for the granting of surface rights, surface interests.
I must admit that I'm not entirely sure what the mechanisms of appeal will be under the claims legislation.
Mr. Stinson: When you find out, could I get that information?
Mr. Beaubier: Yes. I will specify that in each of the instances.
Mr. Thalheimer: On the land claims in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, is all of the territories under dispute as far as the aboriginal community's concerned?
Mr. Beaubier: Yes.
Mr. Thalheimer: Every inch of it?
Mr. Beaubier: Every inch is under claim. A number have been settled, as I mentioned.
Areas generally immediately northwest and south of Great Slave Lake have yet to be resolved. They're under claim by a group called Treaty 8, the Detcho and the Dogrib. All other claims in the Northwest Territories have been settled.
In the Yukon there is a settlement of a comprehensive umbrella final agreement. There are 14 first nations negotiating specific settlements underneath that umbrella. Four of those have been settled and finalized. The remaining ten need to be concluded. Some of those are in an advanced stage of discussion. We've set aside lands known as interim protected areas. Those are withdrawn from disposition until such time as the claim is actually finalized and the grant of land under that claim is given.
Mr. Thalheimer: What jurisdiction or what control do the territorial governments have as far as land is concerned? Is that the same as it is for the provinces?
Mr. Beaubier: No. That role is yet with Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Thalheimer: Everything?
Mr. Beaubier: Everything with minor exceptions. There are lands, known as commissioner's lands, that have been transferred to the control and authority of the Yukon government and the Northwest Territories. Those lands generally surround communities, so they deal with local matters of land use planning and land allocations within communities. But virtually 99% of all lands remain federal.
I spoke about devolution. We are committed to moving those kinds of provincial programs north to the two territorial governments, so at a point in time mining, forestry, oil and gas, lands, and so on will go to the territories. But the ease with which that's done is intimately tied into land claims. So until claims are further advanced, the progress of devolving authorities north has to be tied into claims.
.1230
The Chairman: I want to make a clarification. On recommendation 2 of our interim report we had indicated that Natural Resources Canada would be the lead authority in this area. That's a little bit of an oversight; it should have made it clear that north of 60 it is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that is responsible. It wasn't the intent of this committee to ignore that fact, it was just an oversight. I wanted to put that on the record.
One last question, and it's on the land claims issue. There is a mine development, Voisey Bay, taking place. Can you give us an update as to the land claim situation up there and whether it's going to be able to be resolved so that development can move forward?
Mr. Beaubier: You must recognize that is in - I always hate these answers - a different part of the department. I know that doesn't sit well, but let me try.
Voisey Bay is in Labrador - Newfoundland and Labrador. It spans an area that is between two claimant groups. It's unsettled and there are no claims that have been finalized in that area; the process of negotiating claims is under way with the claimant groups. The control with respect to the actual development of that property is by and large in provincial hands. There is active engagement with the federal government, the provincial government and the aboriginal groups to try to reach some common understanding as to how the different interests are going to be managed as Voisey Bay develops.
We run into a somewhat similar situation in the Northwest Territories where we have the BHP Diamond project, which is in an unsettled claim area, claimed both by Treaty 8, based in Yellowknife, and the Dogrib, based in Fort Rae. Again, we're talking about how to accommodate the aspect of ongoing development and at the same time make sure that the claimant groups' interests and views of that project are accommodated.
I can't provide much more than that, other than to assure you that this matter is being looked at very closely by the federal government, by the provincial government, and of course by engaging with the claimant groups.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Peter, you have one question.
Mr. Thalheimer: Just to follow on your question, Mr. Chairman.
Labrador itself - is every inch there is still under dispute, a land claim?
Mr. Beaubier: I don't know.
Mr. Thalheimer: Is that the same as the other province? Because it's ``Newfoundland and Labrador''.
Mr. Beaubier: Yes.
Mr. Thalheimer: Is Newfoundland, the island of Newfoundland...?
Mr. Beaubier: I'll have to get that information for you, sir. An attempt at an answer is that I don't believe there is any claim on Newfoundland, per se -
Mr. Thalheimer: But all of Labrador?
Mr. Beaubier: My expectation is that Labrador would be under claim, but I will verify that with you.
Mr. Thalheimer: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your testimony. We very much appreciate it.
This committee stands adjourned to the call of the chair. Thank you.