AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, December 5, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

Ms. Sandy Babcock (Executive Director, Yukon Chamber of Commerce)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Mike Power (President, Yukon Chamber of Mines)

The Chair

Ms. Ann Ledwidge (Director, Klondike Placer Miners' Association)

Á

1120

The Chair

Á

1125

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

The Chair

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Sandy Babcock

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert McIntyre (Treasurer, Yukon Chamber of Commerce)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert McIntyre

Á

1130

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert McIntyre

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert McIntyre

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mr. Robert McIntyre

The Chair

Mr. Mike Power

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Mr. Mike Power

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Mike Power

Mr. Robert McIntyre

Mr. Inky Mark

Á

1140

Mr. Robert McIntyre

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Mike Power

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Robert McIntyre

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. Mike Power

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Robert McIntyre

Á

1145

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Mike Power

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Mr. Mike Power

Á

1150

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Mike Power

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Brent St. Denis

Á

1155

Ms. Ann Ledwidge

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Mike Power

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Mike Power

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Mike Power

The Chair

Â

1200

Ms. Christine Cleghorn (Executive Director, Yukon Conservation Society)

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Christine Cleghorn

Â

1210

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Chuck Birchall (Counsel, Yukon Conservation Society)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Birchall

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Christine Cleghorn

The Chair

Ms. Christine Cleghorn

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Christine Cleghorn

Â

1215

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Chuck Birchall

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Chuck Birchall

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Â

1220

Mr. Chuck Birchall

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 012

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, December 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order. The order of the day is Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and social economic effects of certain activities in the Yukon.

    We have with us today, appearing as witnesses by videoconference from Whitehorse, Yukon, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, represented by Sandy Babcock, executive director, and Robert McIntyre, treasurer.

    From the Yukon Chamber of Mines we have the president, Mike Power; and from the Klondike Placer Miners' Association, the president, Tara Christie, and the director, Ann Ledwidge.

    We invite you to make a short presentation, which will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Please proceed. We would appreciate it if you would name yourselves before making your presentations.

    Ms. Sandy Babcock (Executive Director, Yukon Chamber of Commerce): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    My name is Sandy Babcock. I am the executive director for the Yukon Chamber of Commerce. With me today is Rob McIntyre, one member of our executive, who has joined me to help answer any questions you may have.

    On behalf of the Yukon business community, we thank you for taking the time to hear our presentation today.

    The Yukon Chamber of Commerce represents seven community chambers of commerce with a combined membership of approximately 900 businesses operating throughout the Yukon. We act as the voice of Yukon business. We are charged with the responsibility of bringing forward to governments our concerns, and where we can, our recommendations for positive changes that will assist business in providing the economic underpinning of the Yukon. It is in this spirit that we address your committee today.

    The Yukon Chamber of Commerce fully supports the conclusion of Yukon Indian land claims through the implementation of legislation that was mandated in the umbrella final agreement. Further, we fully endorse government's responsibility to foster sound local environmental stewardship.

    It would be useful for your committee to have a broad understanding of the Yukon economic situation when deliberating on a bill that will potentially have such significant consequences to the economic performance of our territory. The economy of the Yukon depends primarily on four inputs--minerals, oil, and gas; tourism; renewable resources; and government spending. During the mid-1990s, the territories' minerals, oil and gas, renewable resources, and tourism generated over half of the revenue, representing 52% of the Yukon economy. Federal moneys represented 48%, the remaining half.

    Half a decade later, the landscape has changed dramatically. Minerals, oil and gas, renewable resources, and tourism account for only 19% of the revenues generated in the territory, while the net federal inflow has jumped to 81% of the Yukon economy. This pattern of heavy reliance on federal money is not healthy, desirable, or sustainable.

    The Yukon Chamber of Commerce does not consider itself an expert organization on the detailed issues of specific industrial sectors. We will leave that to our colleagues representing those sectors, who will be appearing before you later this morning to give you an accurate and detailed view of why this has happened. We do know that all natural resource development industries have decried the recent dramatic increase in ambiguous regulations and bad administration of those regulations, which has effectively driven investment away. The regulations, although originally intended to provide better stewardship of the Yukon environment, have badly missed this goal. They have not encouraged better environmental practices; they have simply stopped industry in its tracks.

    Surely this was not the intention of Parliament when it passed such forward-thinking legislation as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Just as surely, it must not be Parliament's intention to simply change weapons from the CEAA to the YESAA, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, in an effort to deal our economy a fatal blow. We believe Parliament must be looking for a better way to encourage sound environmental practices, and involve Yukon first nations people in that effort. We applaud this intention; however, we fear that Bill C-2 does not accomplish this broad goal.

    If the Yukon is to enjoy economic prosperity in the future, amendments to the draft YESAA are required. We encourage you to consider the following recommendations. We have serious concerns about the lack of timelines at critical first steps in the entire process. The reference to timelines in the legislation is vague and subject to varying interpretations. We recommend that clearly dictated timelines be established in the legislation at the critical first step in the entire process, that of accepting an application.

    The potential for existing projects, approved by some earlier legislative process, to be screened through this legislation is unacceptable and must be addressed. Investment in the Yukon in any sector will be sharply curtailed if investors can never be certain they have completed all of the legislative requirements.

Á  (1110)  

    We recommend that the legislation be amended to provide for projects that have been approved by some earlier legislative process and that they not be subject to further YESAA assessments. There are issues surrounding the board and district offices in the legislation, where there are poorly defined powers and little accountability for the board and its district offices. There must be opportunity for public input in the development of the regulations that will accompany this legislation.

    We would propose that in addition to federal, territorial, and first nations governments, affected stakeholder groups should be directly involved in the development of the regulations that follow this act. We have another concern, that there is not a mandatory five-year public review in this legislation. Our solution, of course, would be to amend the legislation to include a provision for a mandatory public review within five years following its enactment.

    We agree with the concerns of and support the recommendations submitted by the Kwanlin Dun First Nation in association with the Kaska Nation-White River First Nation, and we support the recommendations of our colleagues who represent specific industry organizations you will hear later today.

    We ask two things of you this morning. First, we ask that you give serious consideration to the concerns and recommendations we have conveyed to you today, and second, we respectfully request that the Yukon Chamber of Commerce be invited to actively participate in the development of regulations and in the implementation of Bill C-2, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act.

    Thank you for your time today.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Who are we hearing from next?

    Mr. Mike Power (President, Yukon Chamber of Mines): My name is Mike Power, and I'm president of the Yukon Chamber of Mines. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.

    The Yukon Chamber of Mines was founded in 1950 with the aim of promoting the mining industry in the Yukon. We currently have around three hundred members, both corporate and individual. We're an umbrella organization. We have members on our board from the Klondike Placer Miners' Association, who will speak after us, and the Yukon Prospectors Association. We used to have the Yukon Mine Operators Association, but they're not with us right now.

    We submitted a written brief to the committee on Monday, and I hope you've had an opportunity to look at it. In that brief we identified 18 issues with the act specifically. I don't know if it would be very helpful to go over all of them right now; they're all well described, I think, in the brief.

    I'd just like to leave two points with you if I could. We're not very clear at our end whether or not changes are possible in this act given the tripartite nature of the negotiations that led to its creation. However, we sincerely urge you to strongly consider allowing meaningful public consultation in the sense of the act, in the formulation, the regulation, and the board rules that will flesh out this act and give it real substance. Without that, this act could do serious damage to the Yukon's economy.

    Second, we urge you to consider implementing a mandatory five-year review of this act, five years after it's been running to see how it's working, in the same manner as it was included in CEAA and also in accordance with the umbrella final agreement, which I understand recommends the same provision.

    Thank you. That concludes my presentation.

    The Chair: And now we will hear from the Klondike Placer Miners' Association.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge (Director, Klondike Placer Miners' Association): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    My name is Ann Ledwidge. I'm here on behalf of the Klondike Placer Miners' Association, otherwise known as the KPMA. I'm a volunteer on the board of directors.

    Here with me today is the KPMA president, Tara Christie, and a KPMA adviser, Randy Clarkson.

    The KPMA is an organization that represents Yukon placer miners. There are currently about 100 family-owned placer mines in the Yukon. Our placer industry is one of the largest private sector employers in the Yukon. It currently generates between $31 million and $58 million for the Yukon economy annually. However, placer mining has affected less than one-fifth of 1% of the Yukon land base since the Klondike gold rush of 1898.

    The KPMA has voiced its concerns with DAP or YESAA, as it is now known, from the early stages to the present. We are extremely pleased to be able to present our concerns to you today. We don't have enough time to detail all of our issues here, but please refer to our written submission, where we have detailed our concerns and proposed solutions.

    Bill C-2 is not providing a reasonable balance between environmental and socio-economic goals. Beneficial as well as detrimental effects must be considered. It will have serious consequences for our livelihood, and it clearly contravenes some of the objectives set out for YESAA in the first nations umbrella final agreement, or UFA.

    Here are a few of our main concerns. Procedural fairness and natural justice must be incorporated in, and protected by, this legislation. It currently is not. Proponents must have the opportunity to review and comment on interventions. For example, when a placer miner applies for a water licence, he or she must have the opportunity to review and respond to interventions, to clarify, mitigate, or refute claims. Otherwise, it would not be a comprehensive review as is required under section 12.1.1.6 of the umbrella final agreement.

    We currently have a workable licensing process for the Yukon placer mining industry through the Yukon Territory Water Board, which follows the rules for natural justice and procedural fairness. All information is public, and everyone has a right to be heard in a public forum. This must be maintained within YESAA.

    Another issue is when decision documents from various bodies do not conform. In the case of a placer miner, the Yukon Territory Water Board would not be able to issue a water licence. There must be a process for reconciling two or more different decision documents in a timely manner.

    There must also be fixed time limits at every stage of the assessment, including the acceptance of the application. Like farmers, placer miners can only operate in summer because of their need for flowing water. One missed summer means no production, and therefore no income for 18 months.

    Existing projects must not be reassessed. This would contravene the certainty required under YESAA and the umbrella final agreement. For example, why would a placer miner invest all of his family savings if the rules could change after he has committed to the project?

    Under this bill, the public must be consulted during the development of the regulations. We can't allow a limited number of individuals to write these regulations. This would be detrimental to the well-being of all Yukoners.

    The KPMA also supports the idea of a five-year review of the legislation, as put forward by the Kwanlin Dun First Nation and other witnesses who have appeared before you.

Á  (1120)  

    In conclusion, yes, there is a permitting process that can be improved by incorporating rules of procedural fairness and natural justice; having a provision for resolution when decision documents do not conform, particularly for water licences; not allowing a review of existing projects; having clearly defined timelines; requiring public input into the writing of regulations; and requiring a five-year review of the legislation.

    The KPMA urges you to uphold the objectives set out for YESAA in the first nations umbrella final agreement, and request that you consider our detailed written submission.

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now we will go to our question period. But it won't be a seven-minute round, it will be a five-minute round for Mr. Vellacott. As the official opposition, you get six minutes.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Did we cover everybody at the table?

    The Chair: All three groups have—

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: There's a bit of confusion here. We're not sure if the Yukon Conservation Society is to go now or at 9 o'clock.

    The Chair: They go at 9 o'clock your time.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: Or 12 o'clock your time.

    The Chair: They go next. It's a separate presentation.

    Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: First off, because time is limited, I would ask the Yukon Chamber of Commerce for just a quick summary and synopsis of its recommendations again. I just want clarification on them.

    Then I want to ask questions of other groups just to give you a heads-up in terms of the mandatory five-year review. I guess it is fairly straightforward. But great concern has been expressed about the existing projects. Another problematic thing seems to me to be the different rules for different offices.

    But perhaps the lady from the Yukon chamber could cut to the chase and give me a quick summary of the chamber's recommendations first.

    Ms. Sandy Babcock: Our basic recommendations were that specific timelines have to be established in the legislation; existing projects should not undergo or be subject to a potential further screening by YESAA, if they have already been approved by a previous piece of legislation; the ambiguous rules for district offices need to be further clarified; and we support the mandatory five-year public review, which we feel is essential.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So these are the basic recommendations.

    To anybody who quickly wants to jump in on this, I guess we've queried some different people about specific timelines. Would it not be as well to leave this in regulations, or leave it to be worked out? I'm not a miner or one who has been involved directly in this, but can this not be worked out in the regulations? Or if not, why not? What would you suggest in the way of timeframes, a year or a year and a half? Could somebody give me a some sense of that quickly?

    Mr. Robert McIntyre (Treasurer, Yukon Chamber of Commerce): It's Rob McIntyre, from the Yukon Chamber of Commerce.

    What we think can happen is that, while the timeline issue will obviously be housed in regulations, the act should require that the timelines for the acceptance of an application be fixed in regulations.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you are okay with the fact that there will be specified or set timelines without getting into whether they will be 18 months, or 6 months, or 12 months? That may be less of an issue than there being certainty and set timelines. Is this all your asking for?

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: We understand that at this point you're just deliberating Bill C-2 and that it has a requirement for regulations to be developed to fix the timeline. We've also asked to be involved in the development of those regulations and will be suggesting something in the order of 30 days.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If we add something as an amendment, or whatever, that talks about timelines, certainly saying what those timelines are.... The issue of certainty is your concern, I would suppose. Is that correct? Yes or no.

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: Yes.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On the existing projects, let's get to the different offices, different rules. The impression I've been given by others, at least by one other source, would indicate that these general rules set by the board--the different rules from the different offices--can't be in contradiction to that.

    If you have the general parameters set, is it okay to have a little variance thereafter? Or are you thinking there could be some major conflicting different rules set by different offices that lead to some considerable concern? Can you not have some general parameters set by the board and then simply from there have maybe some slight variance but nothing monumental or earthshaking? The inference is that we're going to have some radically different rules from office to office. Is that what you're implying?

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: That's entirely possible. We've seen that with other administration of different regulations and legislation. It shouldn't be different to develop a project in one part of the Yukon than it is in another part of the Yukon.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: If I may, I would like to just jump in and give you the Klondike Placer Miners' view on this. Is that possible?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, go ahead.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: I'd just like to put it from a placer miner's point of view because I think that has the most similarity between different miners and different areas. They tend to operate in the same way and they are spread out over the territory. We do have close to 100 operating mines. This is something that should not have different rules depending on where you go in the territory. The miners should be able to pick up their equipment and know that they can use the same equipment that they've invested their money in and mine in the same way in a different part of the territory.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. For those individuals who say that it's all right to have some different rules, what would be their justification, as they've explained it to you, as to why there needs to be some variance allowed there? What are they using to justify those different rules in different places? Whether you buy it or not, just tell me what they're saying.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: Sorry, who's saying...

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, the individuals who say it's all right, who accord and defend the act as it stands, and say it's okay to have some different rules, different offices, it's not a problem. Give me for a moment their rationale. You obviously wouldn't agree with it. Why would they say that's fine, that it's not going to impede economic...?

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: That's a good question. To be honest, I haven't heard any good rationale put forward for why there should be different rules from different designated offices. Our activities are the same whether they're in one district or in another district.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll have to ask them directly. But you've had no rationale put forward as to why there ought to be different ones.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: No. The most I can do is put a rationale for not having to put rules in different districts.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

    The Chair: Time is up. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Mr. Loubier, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[English]

    If I understood the intervention of the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, you requested a new process to review the bill after five years, but in the definitive accord there is a disposition at section 12.19.3 that anticipates this revision. Do you want to review this article, to improve this article, to permit a group such as the Yukon Chamber of Commerce to participate in this evaluation? What is your precise request on this aspect of the bill?

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: Thank you for the question. You must be referring to the umbrella final agreement.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, UFA.

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: Looking at the bill parts we've been dealing with that have come from that, we're not looking at anything that would be counter to the provisions of the umbrella final agreement. But we are specifically looking to be involved in a broader public input to a review of the act that is not shrouded in the same procedures that guided the rest of the umbrella final agreement development.

    The Chair: Does anyone wish to add to the answer?

    Mr. Mike Power: Yes.

    The Chair: We'll have to go quickly, because when I say five minutes, it's for both the question and the answer.

    Mr. Mike Power: Just to amplify what we said, if you want to see how well a car works, you might be wise to talk to the drivers, which in this case is the public using this process. The UFA doesn't specify how the public is to be consulted when this legislation is implemented. I think you would have to agree that it might be a grave mistake not to ensure that the people who are most affected by the legislation, which would principally be developers whose projects are brought forward, are consulted. If they're not consulted when the legislation is reviewed, the review won't be very effective.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Would it be possible for the committee to suggest to the government an enlargement of the consultation process after five years? Is it possible for our committee to suggest that to the federal government?

    The Chair: Yvan, you may ask that question of the parliamentary secretary when we do clause-by-clause.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: But it's possible.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Everything is possible.

    Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I apologize for missing your discussions here.

    I have a question for the Yukon chamber. What role do you think municipalities should play? Do you think they should be included in the bill?

    Mr. Mike Power: Is that addressed to the Chamber of Commerce or the Chamber of Mines?

    Mr. Inky Mark: You can respond to that question. Do you see a role for the municipalities?

    Mr. Mike Power: May I ask that this be referred to the Chamber of Commerce? We're just the mining side here.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Okay. That's fine.

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: The short answer is yes. Municipalities will be heavily impacted by YESAA. They have not been centrally involved in the development. They're likely to have some experience after five years where they'll be wanting to press their case for changes. This is a far-reaching piece of legislation, which will impact many very small types of activities that municipalities typically will be engaged in.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I'm hearing that you support the idea that they should be denoted in the legislation as a separate entity.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: Yes.

    Mr. Inky Mark: If I can ask another question, do you think land claims final agreement should be settled before the invoking of this act, certainly around Whitehorse?

    Mr. Mike Power: A curveball.

    The Chair: Who will address the question?

    Mr. Mike Power: The Chamber of Mines has no feeling one way or the other. That settlement is an issue between the government and the first nations. Our concern is just seeing that the act be implemented, hopefully changed for the better and then implemented quickly.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Does the chamber have a response?

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: The Chamber of Commerce would second the Chamber of Mines' response. It's not an issue. We haven't been centrally involved in the last three decades of land claims negotiations. We're not privy to all the commitments that have been made and obligations by the various parties, so that's a question to which I don't think we can provide a response.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Okay.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

    Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Larry Bagnell, the MP for the Yukon, I'd like to recognize a person who will probably be involved in dealing with this bill in the Senate, Senator Christensen, who is in the room with us.

    Thank you very much for being here.

    Now, Mr. Bagnell, for five minutes.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Thank you, and I'd like to thank you all for coming. These are great organizations in the Yukon, very long-standing, very credible organizations that have done good work for the Yukon. It's great to see so many Yukoners participating. It's great to see Chuck there, from the Whitehorse Star, as well.

    The theme that I got for most of the presentation, the main point or a common point, was that, with the legislation itself, with the seven years of negotiations, you had input to that and everything, and the various drafts, and a number of the things you were putting forward during those seven years and the points you wanted to get across have ended up in the regulations, which means that they're not publicly developed yet. The main point is that you want to make sure you have a voice in those, because some of those points that are left to the regulations are just as important for development as the things that are in the legislation itself.

    I know you only get five minutes, so in a way this question is just a chance to give you more time to speak to those. So if anyone wants to speak to that point, to make sure that I got it right and that was what the various groups were trying to get across, please go ahead.

    Mr. Mike Power: From the Chamber of Mines' perspective, we're the major user of CEAA, if you will. During the formulation of the umbrella final agreement, we were not meaningfully consulted concerning the development of the development assessment process, which guided this act.

    The act was taken before the public in various drafts. The first draft was resoundingly attacked by members of the business community in the Yukon. It led to some beneficial revisions in the second version. But it's a long way from being anything the business community is going to find satisfactory.

    If this is the kind of process that's going to be used to guide the regulations, we are in big trouble here. We are also critically concerned about the board rules. If you look in the act, there's no provision to consult the public in the development of the board rules, which contain the minutiae that will affect developers and people opposing development. Now, these rules are going to be formulated by the board, be presented for a 60-day review, and then they'll be the law. So this is a concern we have.

    In the formulation of the regulations, we also have no idea how we are to be involved—if at all. And the devil is in the details. So I just ask you to consider carefully that the public, who is going to have to use this act, should be meaningfully consulted in the formulation of the board rules and the regulations.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Are there any other groups wanting to respond to this?

    Mr. Robert McIntyre: I would just like to thank Mr. Bagnell for the question, and would second what the Yukon Chamber of Mines said.

    We are concerned that despite a lot of what passed as consultation over the last several years, we don't feel we were effective in having our points reflected anywhere that we have seen. This same kind of consultation process with the regulations would not do anybody any good. We need a different sort of process here, to be involved with the regulations.

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: I would like to say that I strongly support what the Chamber of Mines and the Chamber of Commerce have put forward. I am saying it again just to emphasize the point that the regulations are the very important implementation part of YESAA. They provide all of the methods by which this act will be implemented. I think it's very important that we have a say in what is in these regulations.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    We have enough time for another three minute round.

[English]

    Mr. Mark, for three minutes.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I was just going to say that in your brief you indicated that “the rules pertaining to designated offices must be reconsidered”. What is it you object to right now?

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: One of the main rules or points we object to is that the designated offices are allowed to make rules pertaining to the standard mitigative clauses that will appear. We feel that these items will affect people territory-wide. Therefore, they should not be made for the particular district, but come from board level. Having different standard clauses between different districts provides absolutely no certainty to the proponent.

    Mr. Inky Mark: So what is your suggestion in terms of standardizing the process?

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: It should not come from the designated office level but from the board level. Any standard mitigative clauses should be Yukon-wide, and not just district by district.

    Mr. Inky Mark: The other thing you indicated was that assessments must have a time limit. Do you have any idea what this should be?

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: Right now we have a very good working process. It's through the Yukon Territory Water Board. We've worked quite closely with the water board. We have it for a standard licence. It's down to about three to four months from the start, when the application goes in, until the water licence is produced. So we would like to see that maintained.

    That's another reason why the public needs to be consulted on these regulations. I'm sure everybody has different views as to what time limits should go in there, and if the time limits are going to be incorporated in the regulations, then we need a say into that.

    Mr. Mike Power: If I could jump in from the Chamber of Mines' perspective, KPMA has described the issue of permitting placer mines, which are much smaller-scale than hard-rock mines. In the last 10 years in the Yukon, it takes anywhere from 23 to over 97 months and counting to permit hard-rock mines in the Yukon.

    It's generally accepted worldwide that a permitting window in the range of 6 to 18 months would be reasonable for a significant mining development. That should be the benchmark that people are aiming for here, I think, if you want to see significant, or any, mineral development return to the Yukon. I should point out that right now there are no operating hard-rock mines in the Yukon. To a large degree this is due to the dysfunctional permitting process that we have operating here under CEAA. All this act will do is complicate matters further, unless this issue of timelines is somehow addressed.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): It's good to see you all.

    My question has to do with what I would see as the complexity of this piece of legislation. It seems, as I think the presenters have suggested, to be modelled on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but it seems even more complex than that. It seems remarkably complex for a population of 40,000. I don't know why you received this special treatment.

    I look, for example, at the part of the bill that refers to the stages of assessment. I think there are at least five stages that one could come up with, depending on how things went.

    Is there a general feeling that this is a rather overly complex piece of legislation for the task at hand?

    Mr. Mike Power: This legislation is incredibly complex. It provides no certainty for the developers. It also contains pathologies that were identified in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, and it has imported them into YESAA. We're going to have to deal with these problems at some point. That's why we're pressing for a mandatory five-year review.

    If you look at any of the problems that have come up with the MVRMA, they're likely to surface here, because the act has been modelled on the MVRMA. Further, it has this opt-out clause, where you can either go into CEAA or go into YESAA in a major project development. This adds an additional level of uncertainty into the act. So we fully concur with your comments.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. John Godfrey: The other thing that strikes me, and this comes from submitters other than yourselves--it's interesting what a common theme it was--was the question of public participation, or consultation, or involvement, or sharing of information. What I find interesting about this is that it covers quite a variety of opinion, as I understand it, in the Yukon. But there does seem to be some common ground for amending this.

    Is it your view that we need to do something precisely in the legislation or do we just have to wait for regulations and hope for the best? Do you have a view on that?

    Mr. Mike Power: Part of the reason I think everyone is standing back and giving these general recommendations is there is a number--quite a large number--of inconsistencies, conflicts, flaws, and ambiguous language in the act. We have referred to some of them in our brief. I'm sure that you'll see in the KPMA's brief similar detailed notes. So in five minutes we really can't come here and say, okay, here's what has to be changed. But I think we're all looking at this like a mountain that's very difficult to climb.

    My real worry in this act is that you're going to end up having it rewritten in the law courts by various intervener groups. You're going to have ambiguous language that's going to frustrate and eventually chase away any development that's left in the Yukon. It's going to bring assessment down to an inappropriately low level for many activities.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. St. Denis.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have two very short questions.

    Ms. Ledwidge, in your comments you mentioned a concern that it might be possible, or perceived that it might be possible, that existing placer operations would have to be re-evaluated or reassessed. Is that just a general concern or is there a specific reason that you believe it might be possible? Because it seems to me that no legislation would be allowed to be retroactive to that extent. I think it was you who suggested that.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: Yes. Specifically, the act states that reviews of existing projects are allowed. This provides absolutely no certainty that any project that's ongoing, that has been assessed already, whether it's under other acts or whether it's under YESAA itself, cannot then be reassessed. There must be a trigger. There must be something that is a material change put forward by the proponent, and that should be the only criterion to allow for a reassessment of this project. If there have been no changes, there should not be a review. But we have no guarantee of this as the legislation is written.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: So you would rather it be more specific that a material change be required to necessitate a review. It would seem to you then that there is a certain “may” element to the way it is written.

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: Yes. It's not saying that every project is going to be reassessed, but it does allow that every project could be reassessed. That's a big concern for us. With these placer mines, and we're also talking about other projects that are ongoing, obviously people have invested a lot of time and money into these projects and they need the certainty for their project.

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'll conclude with a question that requires a yes or no answer, Mr. Chair.

    My understanding is that the board's decisions are ultimately of an advisory nature to the government. If my interpretation is correct, is there any comfort in that for those around the table that ultimately the government will decide based on recommendations only from the board?

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Ann Ledwidge: Speaking specifically from the placer industry point of view, there is some comfort in the case of the Yukon Territory Water Board because we do have a good working relationship with them, and we've built up trust over the years. We see the major stumbling block as being that the government agencies that are providing the permits for a project produce these decision documents under YESAA, and what is going to happen when two or possibly more decision documents are produced? These documents do not have to agree, they do not have to conform. There must be a provision for the resolution of that. Otherwise you have these decision documents out there that are basically meaningless. The project would not be allowed to go forward if one agency in the government says, yes, you can do this, but you also need this, on the other hand, in order to go forward with your project.

    So you are in limbo. There is absolutely no provision for it in the bill, and we would like to see something in the bill that says that this must be resolved and resolved within a reasonable and specific timeframe.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My question is along the line of the existing projects. In one of the briefs here, the Placer Miners' Association had suggested an amendment of paragraph 30(3)(a) in the bill. A lot of this is speculative, of course, but I suppose that it might in fact breed that when there are all kinds of people trying to make work, or concerned that they don't have enough hours they're putting in, enough per diems and so on, that they might get into creating work that is perhaps not even required. Would an amendment like that, the one my colleague Mr. St. Denis mentioned, entirely take care of the concerns you have in that area in respect to any existing projects? You have an amended suggestion of review of existing projects where material change in the project is proposed. That would deal with any concerns?

    Mr. Mike Power: That would be a minimum requirement. The language is a bit loose. We're just seeing an issue arise in the Northwest Territories over a water licence that was in effect for over 30 years. There was no change in the project, but when it came up for renewal, that served as a trigger for a full-blown environmental assessment.

    The same thing could happen here, but at least there would be some sort of excuse for a trigger if the amendment proposed by the KPMA were put in. It wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it would be better than nothing.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess that was the major question I had on that. You've expressed considerable concern about these existing projects. Has anybody kind of threatened or inferred that is going to occur, or does just knowing human nature and how these work cause your concern? Have you had some conversations with bureaucrats at the federal or territorial level that have given you reason to believe they might move in and do those kinds of things, or is knowing how these things can occur raising the spectre?

    Mr. Mike Power: We see it happening right next door in the Northwest Territories, with the Cantung mine going in for a full-blown environmental assessment to renew a water licence. We have no reason to believe that won't happen here under the legislation, the way it's drafted, and even with that amendment. Nonetheless, we're asking for some minimal protection, so at least there's some sort of statutory trigger.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So there isn't some conspiracy theory; you're concerned simply because you've seen it happen elsewhere, in a neighbouring territory.

    Mr. Mike Power: We've seen similar actions here, where there wasn't an existing trigger. There was a submission of a closure plan for a mine, which was required under the water licence. It was not an application for anything; there was no approval to be given by government. I met with a senior official within one department and said there was no trigger there to do a screening, but the official said, “I'll just have to make a trigger”. They very clearly want to rescreen things.

    The Chair: Your time's up.

    Thank you very much, everyone, for excellent presentations and excellent information. It's very helpful for the committee.

    We'll now be hearing from the Yukon Conservation Society, Mr. Chuck Birchall, a lawyer with Birchall Northey; and Christine Cleghorn, executive director. I'm told that Mr. Birchall is here in Ottawa and Ms. Cleghorn is in Whitehorse. If you wish to introduce the guests accompanying you, we would appreciate that. You can begin your presentation at any time.

    However, before we do that, I would like to address the committee. In anticipation of Mr. Loubier's concerns, I just wish to draw to the attention of the committee that this is an agreement of three parties. In the agreement, section 12.19.3 says:

A comprehensive review of the development assessment process by the parties to the Umbrella Final Agreement shall be completed five years after the enactment of Development Assessment Legislation.

    This forms part of the agreement, but my understanding is it's not in the bill. So I would encourage department people, the minister, staff, and the parliamentary secretary to work with Mr. Loubier, if you feel there's a way to resolve this.

    Excuse me for the interruption. Please begin your presentation.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Christine Cleghorn (Executive Director, Yukon Conservation Society): Thank you very much.

    I would like to introduce Alice Hartling, the acting executive director for the Yukon Conservation Society. My appearance here this morning is a one-shot appearance, as I'm currently on leave from my position.

    The Yukon Conservation Society was established in 1968. We're an environmental non-profit based in Whitehorse, and we've been following the development of this legislation since 1998 and the first round of public consultations. We've been participating jointly with the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in many of our submissions, and have participated in a number of workshops and other stakeholder discussions along with commenting on subsequent drafts of the legislation.

    I echo what you heard in the previous presentations in that there was no shortage of meetings and discussions respecting drafts leading up to the introduction of Bill C-2. It's apparent that very few of the recommendations made by various stakeholder groups, including YCS and CPAWS Yukon, were seriously considered or adopted.

    It is our view that the consultation process failed to grasp the opportunity presented by the umbrella final agreement to have an effective and straightforward made-in-the-Yukon assessment regime. Instead, the bill is largely based on the model set forth in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

    Notwithstanding our reservations, we recognize that it has been no short journey to get the bill to the standing committee. Therefore, we're not proposing significant rethinking of the bill or numerous amendments. We do think, however, that amendments in the following three areas will provide meaningful improvements to the bill, and those areas are public review and involvement, enforcement, and a legislative review mechanism.

    The umbrella final agreement provides a clear commitment to public involvement in the regulatory process that I don't feel the need to elaborate on here. In contrast to the UFA, the bill does not commit to public involvement in all stages of assessment. In particular, it makes no provision for public involvement in evaluations conducted by designated offices. It also fails to provide guaranteed opportunities for public involvement at the second level of assessment, mainly screening by the executive committee. Instead, it simply provides that the executive committee may seek any information or views that it believes relevant. In our view this is just not good enough. Even the act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, provides for mandatory public review in the case of comprehensive study or panel review.

    One of our greatest concerns that we have consistently expressed since 1998 is the failure of the bill to include any meaningful provisions to require parties to comply with the requirements of environmental assessment. What we do have in terms of enforcement permits the board, after determining that there may have been a violation of a term or condition of a project decision document, to recommend to the relevant decision body that a public hearing be held.

    In other words, assuming the board is kept appraised of project developments, it can only signal problems or violations to the relevant decision body. The board has no capacity to require compliance with the bill's provisions.

    In the view of the Yukon Conservation Society, there is little point in expending substantial time and money on assessment review if there is not an adequate mechanism in place to ensure the accepted terms and conditions are in fact implemented. We understand that the federal government has determined that enforcement provisions are not necessary in the bill since there are such provisions contained in the statutes that govern decision bodies.

    With respect to first nations that do not have regulatory legislation in place, the federal government is confident that such legislation can be drafted and put in place prior to the bill's implementation. We feel this approach is wrong. It assumes that legislation that just governs decision bodies will give them the power to require compliance with all aspects of a project that has been screened under the bill.

    I think you only have to look as far as the Fisheries Act and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to understand the shortcomings of these assumptions. There the minister can issue an authorization under section 35 of the Fisheries Act to authorize the destruction or alteration of fish habitat. Under the bill as proposed, the DFO authorization would be required to contain all terms and conditions that the proponent must comply with. That's extending its ambit beyond matters related to fish into all aspects of the project. Yet, DFO has no expertise, mandate, or resources to enforce non-fisheries matters.

    Finally, I would like to touch on the legislative review mechanisms. We recommend that a clause be included to provide for review of the bill by the House of Commons, the Senate, or both Houses of Parliament, five years after its enactment. This kind of review mechanism is found in other federal environmental legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the soon-to-be-passed Species at Risk Act. It ensures that there will be a full opportunity to review and correct mistakes or oversights connected with the legislation.

    Partly where we're coming from on this is that the umbrella final agreement is an agreement and we're talking here about legislation. If in five years' time people decide that the extent of that review should be one person from each of the negotiating parties having a coffee and talking about how great the legislation has been, no one in the public has any recourse to demand more of a comprehensive review or demand to have a voice in that process.

    In conclusion, we thank you very much for this opportunity. We are committed to working with the new legislation to ensure that to the extent possible it will help protect the environment and result in future developments reflecting the interests of present and future Yukoners. The task of achieving this goal will be enhanced if the bill includes opportunity for greater public participation, enforcement requirements, and a review mechanism.

    Thank you very much.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

    We will do one round, three from the opposition and two from the government side. We will start with Mr. Vellacott, and it will be a four-minute round.

    Mr. Vellacott, you get five.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

    I guess I'm surprised at the comment. I would have thought that in some fashion or other there would be proper monitoring--a policing of this, if you will--as part and parcel of this, and I'm getting the impression from you that you don't think that's at all been taken care of, or maybe very loosely taken care of.

    Can you fill me in a little bit more on that? Or are you just really skeptical that there's going to be any kind of monitoring and policing? At least that's a general theme that has come out in your presentation.

    Ms. Christine Cleghorn: One of the strengths of the vision for the umbrella final agreement was that this assessment regime would go beyond assessing merely the environmental impacts. There would also be a comprehensive assessment of social and economic impacts. That's going to lead to mitigations, specifically social and economic mitigations. For example, you could have a situation where someone says, I'm going to build my project. I'm going to commit $2 million to training people, and I'm going to establish a scholarship fund. If DFO is the responsible authority, they have nothing to work with if that proponent fails to come forth with those mitigations.

    In the Yukon we have no shortage of abandoned mines. We have an economy that is focused on resource extraction and to some extent on renewable resources. But I don't think we can afford to make this mistake of not building in enforcement when it's such an easy way to go. In discussion with bureaucrats who are working on environmental assessment in Ontario and Manitoba, they've all said that without enforcement there's no point in doing the assessment. You need something to back you up when you're at the table.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Chuck Birchall (Counsel, Yukon Conservation Society): Could I just add to that?

    The Chair: Yes. You have 40 seconds.

    Mr. Chuck Birchall: Firstly, the umbrella final agreement contemplated an enforcement mechanism in this legislation. Secondly, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is grappling with the fact that the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act doesn't have enforcement measures in it. So they're reduced to inserting clauses that call upon the Environmental Assessment Agency to ensure compliance without having any tools for doing it. This gives you an opportunity today to address that problem upfront in this legislation.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Loubier, you have four minutes.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like to make a clarification on the question that I have asked earlier. I had a discussion with the officials from the department who explained to me that an extension of consultations is already being contemplated in the procedures for reassessment established in article 12.19.3 of the umbrella final agreement. Interveners who have expressed some concerns in this regard should know that the issue will be dealt with within the procedural code that the three parties are developing.

    In a nutshell, after the five year review of the extended legislation, it is not mandatory to incorporate this in the bill. It will be in the procedure and I believe that in this regard we should trust the three parties involved.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    In Whitehorse, did you get the translation of what Mr. Loubier said?

    Ms. Christine Cleghorn: He was asking if this is something we could effectively check in with at the point of a five-year review.

    The Chair: The point he was making is that article 12.19.3 is not in the bill. He was explaining that provision will be undertaken within other laws.

    Ms. Christine Cleghorn: Right. I agree with him that it is in the umbrella final agreement. We're asking for more clarity and more certainty about what that would mean.

    The Chair: Could I call the officials to the table to explain how you were able to solve Mr. Loubier's problem?

    Or we can do it when we go to clause-by-clause, if you wish.

[Translation]

    Mr. Loubier, would you like us to wait--

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: There is no problem, Mr. Chair, because in the umbrella final agreement--

    The Chair: They are not getting the translation. I would like someone to give an explanation in English.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Very well.

[English]

    The Chair: We will deal with this when we deal with the clause-by-clause at 12:30.

    Next is Mr. Mark for four minutes.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    You indicated how important public input was, and you also talked about upcoming regulations. What would you propose as the correct way of doing the regulations with public input? What kind of process would you follow?

    Ms. Christine Cleghorn: Leading up to where we are now with this legislation, a stakeholder group was formed by the Yukon government that I think was a valid attempt at trying to include different organizations in the community in the development of the legislation, but it always seemed to be one step behind where the negotiations were at.

    Another fundamental flaw in the consultation was that there was never a feedback loop that said, “We heard your concern, and this is what we did with it.”

    So I think the development of the regulations needs to be much more transparent than the development of the legislation was. I'd start there, and I would further provide resources to groups that want to participate in it, because it's not the kind of process that you can participate in without expert help.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: Well, I hate to disappoint you, but we'll be lucky if we get the regulations before this standing committee before they're enacted.

    And I'm very surprised to hear that there was very little response in terms of the stakeholders group. I agree with you, that's why we put these together, so that people can bring their views to the table.

    That's all I have to say.

    The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Greetings. I'll address my question to Mr. Birchall.

    What I'm finding in listening to the previous groups, this morning particularly, and yourselves, is that of the three points, there seems to be agreement or some sort of resolution on two of them--namely, the review process and the public involvement part.

    On the enforcement issue, at first blush you would not expect business groups to be in favour of more enforcement, but on the other hand, if what they want in life is clarity and a stable operating environment, I would have thought having one regime that dealt with enforcement, rather than farming it out to fisheries and goodness knows where else, would actually provide a greater degree of clarity for the business community. So I'd like a comment on that.

    My second comment is of a procedural variety, and I can probably address this to Mr. Birchall as well.

    We are about to move, after this, into clause-by-clause. So those of us who would like to find, for example, some kind of reconciliation between the witnesses we've just heard and the witnesses we're now hearing are reliant on amendments coming forward. But we haven't seen any amendments, so we can't even ask you whether a proposed amendment would suit your purpose.

    So I'm wondering, as my second question, whether the society has used one of us as a vehicle for bringing forward amendments that address your points of concern, because if that's not the case, we're not going to be able to take into account your suggestions this morning in a way that puts them into a legislative context that we can analyse.

    Whether you want to start with the first or the second point, Mr. Birchall, do you want to say something?

    Mr. Chuck Birchall: I'd be happy to answer the second point first.

    We will be leaving with the clerk a brief that identifies certain sections in the bill that we think could be improved, and we would be happy to provide specific wording for the purposes of clause-by-clause to assist members of the committee.

    Perhaps as just a brief comment on the first point, dealing with enforcement, I think you've captured it accurately, Mr. Godfrey. It is to provide some clarity and some certainty in one place so that you don't have to look for it in a myriad of statutes and regulations dealing with permitting and authorizations.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Let me return to my second point, your first point, which is that you have not yet submitted these things. We're ostensibly under the gun here today, and if we don't have in front of us something submitted by somebody, we risk that the train will have left the station. So I'm wondering, how fast could you get them to us?

    Mr. Chuck Birchall: I would say before the week's end.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

    I know you don't have enough time on these, but the question I was going to ask was whether you could go into a bit more detail on the public information. If we went back and used CEAA instead of YESAA in the Yukon, how would it be technically different in the different stages? What are the different stages in CEAA for public information compared to the different stages in YESAA?

    This is for Mr. Birchall, or Christine.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Chuck Birchall: Sure, I'll start, and Christine can chip in.

    The specific differences, which are in subclauses 60(4), 95(4) and 103(4), deal with reviews by the executive committee, panel reviews, and reviews of plans. These subclauses give the discretion to the relevant body to have some form of public review, or some other form of review. The concern is that it may not be a public review. As Ms. Cleghorn commented, while the screening under CEAA can have discretionary public review, the other stages have a mandatory requirement for public review.

    As I alluded to earlier, I guess the other point is that there is a clause-by-clause review of CEAA taking place right now in Bill C-9 to improve the act. A lot of government attention is being paid to getting information onto the public registry in a timely way, so that the public can have an informed input into whatever project is the subject of review.

    In our response to you, Mr. Bagnell, we would try to get you some specific language that at least mirrors what's going on in Bill C-9 to ensure that information is getting tabled in a timely way and the public has an opportunity to make a meaningful input.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you for excellent presentations. Your information is very helpful.

    We will now suspend proceedings for ten minutes to allow members to get some food.

    Is there a point of information?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Point of order, point of information, whatever, Mr. Chair.

    I guess I was asleep at the switch in terms of us rolling right into clause-by-clause. I'm wondering if, with the consent of the other members here....

    We've heard some good testimony here today, and it pretty much makes it almost without point if in fact we heard some consensus on good things that might be proposed as amendments. I'm not going to be an obstructionist when we get into clause-by-clause, and I don't want to have lengthy explanations. If they're defeated, so be it. But I'm wondering if members across the way would possibly consider starting the meeting for clause-by-clause at 3:30.

    And my apologies for this. Remind me, colleagues, to never again agree to a system where we're moving from witnesses right into clause-by-clause. I don't mean to be obstinate or anything here. I just mean to try to buy a little time so that the good value of testimony here can maybe be proposed or brought into amendments.

    The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, I think the request is reasonable, and I will put it to the floor. However, if you agree, I would like to put on a condition that we at least deal with the clauses for which we have no proposed amendments so that we know what's waiting for us at 3:30. For those who plan on going home today, are we here until midnight or 6 o'clock, or until 5 o'clock? If we can do that, I think it would help a lot—if they agree, that is, not to resume until 3:30.

    Mr. Godfrey, on this issue.

    Mr. John Godfrey: I guess my concern is that I just tried to go through the book to see whether these amendments from the previous presenters—the Chamber of Commerce, Placer Miners Association, and so on, or the Yukon Conservation Society—have been presented through any of us here. I can't tell at first blush whether any of the amendments that either of those groups had in mind has been presented through any of us here.

    For example, I think Mr. Birchall said in response to Mr. Bagnell, “Gee, I can get this to you by the end of the week.” We faced exactly the same problem a week ago, it seems to me. We went through it and we said, “All right, let's get through the stuff we can do and stand aside the other things.” We actually stood them aside until Tuesday, which allowed people.... If I recall correctly, last week it was the national chief who presented to us in the morning, and we felt, I think rightly, that we couldn't do justice to what we'd heard without being able to incorporate that language—and,indeed, try to find common language, which would meet both groups' objectives today, as we've heard.

    So an alternative would be to get through what we can, and to stand aside some of the clauses until we come back on Tuesday, if it is possible to add a session.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Well, right now we're talking of coming back at 3:30. If this doesn't pass, then I'll entertain other requests.

    Are there any comments on suspending proceedings until 3:30? And I'd like some response as to whether we can deal with the ones that are obvious, so we know what kind of workload we have left to do afterwards. But at the present time the request is to suspend until 3:30.

    Mr. Finlay, Mr. Bagnell, and Mr. Vellacott. Very briefly, please.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Yes, very briefly. I'm prepared, and we came prepared. We've heard some conflicting testimony here. I agree that there's some need to be sure that public input is going to be there. I have three pages of department response to proposed amendments. We have the book of amendments.

    I'm certainly going to vote that we continue. If you want to have half an hour for lunch, I wouldn't mind that, but to 3:30, no. I won't get out of here, in that case.

    The Chair: Anyone else before Mr. Vellacott?

    Mr. Vellacott, on your request.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Again, I think you've worked with me enough to know that I really don't have any tricks up my sleeve or anything. It's simply that, as my colleague, John, had indicated too...and I think we could do it today. I'm not talking about delay until next week, unless there's something that I'm not aware of from another side here.

    Ray, on the matter of going with those we know about, I guess the problem is there are a few here who suggested...and I had to step out to use the phone a bit here. It's a matter of trying to figure out where to appropriately shoehorn these in. So I don't know that in some cases I can even say, well, we won't pull that one. And it presents a bit of a difficulty that way, because there are about three or four that I'm not sure where they'd would fit, and if they passed already, then....

    So my ideal preference might be holding it until 3:30 and then dealing as expeditiously as we can to propose it, vote it down or up, or whatever, and then get on.

    I would assume that we could deal with this within a couple of hours and possibly get out and done today.

    The Chair: I will put the question on the motion that the committee suspend proceedings until 3:30.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Meeting is adjourned.