Publication Search

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Library of Parliament staff have given us a kind of situation analysis of what's going on, and I'll start off by asking some questions.

There's an agreement between Canada, the Regional District of East Kootenay, and the Ktunaxa Nation with regard to moving ahead on a proposal, and the Province of British Columbia and the State of Montana seem to have either a parallel or a different agreement on things such as that. The first question is, why hasn't British Columbia bought in? I'll make some assumptions and people can tell us otherwise, but perhaps first you can explain why the British Columbia government isn't privy to something that at first blush makes so much sense.

According to a report out of the British Columbia provincial government, they're developing a southern Rocky Mountain management plan that aims to balance economic interests, the needs of people in the region, and the environmental concerns but does not include the expansion of the park. I think just by laying out those terms you can perhaps see below the surface as to where their intentions are, and I encourage you to get them onside and get a partnership here.

Notwithstanding that, I'd like to perhaps move on to the watershed. I've had a goodly number of years of involvement in watershed and as members of the conservation authorities in the province of Ontario.... As you're aware, there are 38 that are established as a result of defined watersheds, and I'm quite knowledgeable about that.

In the report I have it's unfortunately in shades of grey and black, and all I can do is assume what it says: the original or the current park, the expansion.... Are we doubling it, tripling it, or whatever the case is? And then I'll lead into my questions about watershed.

Ms. Woodley, in your remarks you've made reference to what I'll call the subterranean watersheds and things like that. On the map as proposed, is that encompassed within that 40,000...? Does the area defined here take into consideration the legitimate concerns you have with regard to true watersheds?

Dr. Derek Ford, who was a colleague of mine at McMaster University, and I located a karst area just above the city of Hamilton. It's now part of one of the conservation areas. Dr. Ford has clearly identified the radiation effect, if you want to call it that, of the karst.

Your best intention is that you drop the water in here and you would suspect it might come out there, but that's not the case. So I think the rationale that you're outlining, not only the unique feature of a karst.... There are not a lot of them around. You have to have the right combination of sedimentation and rock values and things like that. When you identify a karst and there's some way you can incorporate it, in my opinion, it will make another unique feature of Nahanni. Like probably all of my colleagues here, I've heard about it and I've seen the pictures, but the characteristics are just so much sense.

With regard to watersheds, I'm a firm believer that what you put in upstream has an adverse effect not only along the stream, but at the bottom end. I think Montana and even British Columbia and those particular areas have indicated the potentially detrimental impact it could be outside of the borders, which would affect everything inside and downstream.

I probably have a minute if somebody would like to comment on that. I can always come back to that question later on.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come to the mines for a second. Can you tell me about the Cantung mine? There's perhaps the urgency of both activating the Prairie Creek mine and the intrusive road that will go to it. Can you tell me about the Cantung mine? Then we'll shift to the Prairie Creek mine.

As Mr. Locke indicated earlier, there is perhaps a finite life to this mine, and you can actually see an end to the operation of the mine, not meaning that the rehabilitation will have taken place. So your initiative is to move ahead and to try to get an acceptable remediation plan for the property in question.

We talked about the Prairie Creek mine too. It's hard to visualize on a map. What is it now? What's the anticipated size? Can we talk about operations or things like that? I want to try to visualize an impact of what it may or may not do--or more likely what it will do if it becomes more operational.

My last set of questions is just a continuation on the mining and all that.

The expansion of the park became a priority in 2002. Obviously there has probably been a desire for expansion of the park from day one, dating back probably thirty-some years, but when has it become...?

I have this uneasy feeling about the Canadian Zinc Corporation. I don't know whether they're looking at a viable operation or perhaps using it as a leverage for a buyout on these things. I'm just suspect with regard to their motives.

It's probably a rhetorical question, but I would welcome an answer if you're prepared to give one.

What do you feel is preferable?

Thank you. The report lays out six recommendations and five policy approaches. Could you clarify the difference, what you mean between recommendations and policy approaches?

So the suggestions you've made within the five policy approaches will now be the approach or that is the approach that's going to be taken by the office?

I have a singular question on one of the policy approaches, and it's on pages 14 and 15. Policy approach number 2 is basically trying to give some clarity with regard to reasonable opportunity to present his or her views. Under the Parliament of Canada Act, it uses the statement “a reasonable opportunity to present his or her views” before the Ethics Commissioner provides advice or issues a report. Yet in the members' code it says “all appropriate stages throughout the inquiry”. Can you give me some clarity? In my own mind, there's a difference. One of them is a little bit more limiting than the other one. And in my opinion, what you're suggesting is more limiting than what is laid out in the Parliament of Canada Act. Perhaps you can help me there.

The supplemental, then, is, does “throughout the inquiry” mean “right up to the point”, or—how should we say it—“moments before” the ethics commissioner would table the report, or “during the actual investigation”? In my own mind, there seems to be a difference between—

Yes, that's correct.