Voisey's Bay Mine and Mill Project

Transcript of Proceedings of the Scoping Sessions

"The following material originates with an organization not subject to the Official Languages Act and is available on this site in the language in which it was written."

HELD AT:
Legion Hall
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador
May 13, 1997
Evening Session

PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms Lesley Griffiths, Chairperson
Mr. Sam Metcalfe, Member
Ms Lorraine Michael, Member
Mr. Charles Pelley, Member
Mr. Peter Usher, Member

TABLE OF CONTENTS (ii)
Opening Remarks
Presentation on behalf of the Naskapis Band of Quebec by Mr. John Mameamskum
Presentation on behalf of the Collective Voices of Women throughout Labrador by Ms Hilda Lyall and Ms Linda Anderson
Presentation on behalf of Voisey's Bay Nickel Company by Mr. William Napier and Mr. Bevin LeDrew
Presentation by Ms Andrea Webb
Presentation by Ms Zippie McLean

--- Upon commencing at 7:04 p.m.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to take your seats, we will get started in a moment.

I would like to welcome you all back to the resumption of our scoping session here in Goose Bay. I would just like to remind those people who are presenting that because we have a full schedule, we are asking presenters to keep their submission to a maximum of 20 minutes and I will indicate to you when you have got five minutes left. So if people could try to adhere to that, that will really help us and then we will have time for questions which is often a very helpful part of the process.

Our next presenter is John Mameamskum from the Naskapis Band of Quebec. If you would like to begin your presentation.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your kind invitation for us to present the following brief.

My name is John Mameamskum. I am the Director General and Band Secretary for the Naskapis Band of Quebec, and my colleague to my back is Mr. John Baird. We elicited his help to help the Band in making this presentation possible.

So because of the time constraints and the time allotment, I have decided to present the main points of our presentation to you, so it is going to be from page to page so I will do it fast.

I represent the Naskapis Band of Quebec, about 650 people that live about 14 kilometres northeast of Schefferville. And the Naskapis signed a comprehensive land claims settlement in January 31st 1978. And we only settled this claim in Quebec subsequent to the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement that the Inuit and the James Bay Cree signed. Therefore I will get started now.

There are three sections in our brief. This first section describes the history of the Naskapis of Quebec in regard to their historic and occupational lands and resources within the present day boundaries of Labrador. The purpose of this section is to assert the historic and present interest of the Naskapis of Quebec in the Labrador territory and our right for full and equal treatment in the Voisey's Bay environmental assessment.

The second section presents major environmental and socio-economic concerns of the Naskapis of Quebec in regard to the project. The final section identifies several issues with regard to the EIS Guidelines.

The Naskapis, like I presented at the beginning, the Naskapis Band of Quebec has a population of 650 people and live in the Community of Kawawachikamach, Quebec near Schefferville within a few kilometres of the Labrador border and 220 kilometres north of Labrador City.

It is a new community constructed by the Naskapis between 1981 and 1984. Its development was a key element of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, an Aboriginal land claims settlement signed in 1978 by the Quebec -- the Naskapis Band of Quebec with the Quebec and federal governments to settle Naskapis Aboriginal claims in Quebec, which is the result of the 1898 and 1912extensions there in Quebec.

Under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement and the James Bay Agreement, the Naskapis of Quebec have a treaty right to harvest approximately 300,000 square kilometres of northern Quebec. The total area is divided into subareas of A, B, C and D and we included a map with our brief. And the principle concern of the Naskapis also is the socio-economic impacts of the Voisey's Bay development project with respect to section D where Naskapis have outfitting camps in the George River area and near the Labrador border.

In recent years, the Naskapis Band of Quebec commissioned a number of studies that compiled evidence of their historic and contemporary use of lands in the present day Labrador. Much of the research material relied on for these studies include journals and correspondence of the Hudson's Bay Company -- Hudson's Bay trading posts and Moravian Missions located in Labrador and northern Quebec.

The history of the Naskapis has generally been divided into three historic periods. Number 1, prior to 1831, which marked the beginning of regular contact between the Naskapis Band of Quebec and European fur traders. Two, from 1831 to 1956 when the Naskapis Band of Quebec moved from Fort Chimo in Ungava Bay to Schefferville, and number three, from 1956 to the present.

The Naskapis led a very nomadic existence that depended on the local availability of food supplies and the migratory habits of the animals they were tracking. Hunting parties tended to be extended family groups moving throughout the large areas of the interior from one season to the next. Early journal references demonstrate the extent of the hunting range that the Naskapis occupied.

Activities of the Naskapis Indians were noted in the journals of the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts at Richmond near Hudson's Bay on April 10, 1753. An extract from the Periodic Accounts of the Moravian Missionaries dated 1790 referred to the Indians that inhabited the country inland from Okak to the northern Labrador coast. This was about 60 years before any direct trade took place between Indians and the Europeans on the Labrador coast.

The presence in Labrador of the Naskapis Band of Quebec therefore appears to be of ancient origin, and was not, as some have argued, initially inspired by the European fur trade. This penetration to Labrador territory resulted from the geographic proximity of the Ungava territory to present day Labrador and the natural inclination of these people to exploit available resources, particularly caribou which migrated back and forth between the areas.

The Naskapis did not settle in any one place. In more recent times they had a tendency to congregate at trading posts at particular times of the year. But on the whole, they continued to hunt and fish in widely dispersed areas. This arose from the nature of the land they occupied. Game was not abundant enough that they could remain in one place and live off the resources together.

I would like to mention for the record also that the Naskapis Band of Quebec and the Davis Inlet Band were, way back, one group. Because of the historic crash of the caribou they depended on, I guess those two groups separated. So they would be hunting in different areas.

There are numerous references in the archival material to the presence of the Naskapis of Quebec at trading posts such as Hopedale and Davis Inlet, Zoar, located in Voisey's Bay and Nain. The trading companies competed aggressively to do business with these people. I will just quote an employee of the Hudson's Bay Company that said at Davis Inlet:

"It is much to be regretted that the Ungava Indians have again visited Zoar, is there no possibility of your being able to induce them to come to Davis Inlet with their furs?"

The Naskapis Band of Quebec have never considered the boundary between Quebec and Labrador as being material with regard to their hunting patterns. In 1989, several Naskapis of Quebec were charged by Labrador game wardens for hunting Canada geese out of season in Iron Arm Lake, Labrador. The trial, The Crown vs. Sylvester Tooma, No. 597, Provincial Court of Newfoundland, Wabush, was heard in 1990.

The Naskapis pleaded that the regulations under the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act were not applicable to them because of their constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal rights to hunt in Labrador at any time of the year. They introduced extensive historic proof to support this claim. After the trial, the Crown ultimately withdrew the charges once written authorities were filed with the judge. In the case, the Crown entered its admission that there had never been any treaty with the Quebec Naskapis extinguishing whatever Aboriginal rights they may have had in Labrador.

In 1995, the Naskapis Band of Quebec submitted a comprehensive Aboriginal land claim covering lands in Labrador extending north from Churchill River to the Hebron area and in northern Labrador from the Labrador-Quebec boundary to the coast. This claim has not yet been accepted by the Minister of Indian Affairs for purposes of negotiation.

One of our key concerns now, Panel members, is that the Naskapis should be recognized as an effected group. The guidelines for the Environmental Impact Statement fail to recognize the Quebec Naskapis as a group who will potentially be affected by the Voisey's Bay mining project.

The evidence we have provided shows that Quebec Naskapis and their ancestors carried out traditional harvesting rights over a vast range of the Labrador-Quebec Peninsula, leading a nomadic life and relying on caribou as their main food source. This range included major tracts of the Labrador territory including lands north, south and inland from Voisey's Bay. More recent land use by the Quebec Naskapis now living in Kawawachikamach has included areas around Mistasin Lake, which is part of one of the watersheds flowing into Voisey's Bay.

Therefore it is the position of the Naskapis of Quebec that the Environmental Impact Statement should afford equal treatment to all Aboriginal groups who have historically occupied lands and harvested resources that potentially and will be affected by the Voisey's Bay mining project. These include lands and resources within and outside the boundaries of Labrador.

The Environmental Impact Statement should also determine all possible effects that the mining project will have or may have on the ecologies of these watersheds resulting directly from mine and mill activities and from such increased human presence in the region. Any industrial or recreational activities that will adversely affect the lower portion of a watershed or any sensitive area within the watershed will have consequences for the watershed as a whole.

The most important and vital role of the Naskapis presentation is that of the George River caribou herd and the impacts on it. It plays a vital role in the Naskapis of Quebec, as it does for other Aboriginal groups in Labrador and Quebec.

According to the study by the Newfoundland Wildlife Division, the migration range of the George River herd extends northward from 53°N latitude taking in much of the Labrador-Quebec Peninsula from the Labrador coast to James Bay. The winter range area includes central Labrador and a large area of Quebec east of James Bay.

Voisey's Bay lies in an important location in the range of the George River caribou herd. Large numbers of caribou are known to overwinter within and near the proposed site. Mistasin Lake, emptying into Voisey's Bay and about 75 kilometres inland, is an important summer range for the caribou.

One thing that we didn't mention also is that up in the northern part of Labrador are the caribou camping grounds which are just above the Indian House Lake.

Another thing that we do have is direct employment and business opportunities. We believe that the economic and employment benefits from Voisey's Bay should be substantial during the construction and operating phase, and presents an opportunity to create economic and social improvements for the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples of the region. However, past experience with other large scale developments in this region does not raise our hopes this will be the case.

The iron ore mines in western Labrador and Schefferville and the Churchill Falls power development have provided huge employment and other economic benefits, yet many parts of the region, particularly Aboriginal communities, continue to be plagued by chronic underemployment.

We believe also there should be consideration for Aboriginal knowledge. This section directs the proponent to make the best efforts to incorporate Aboriginal knowledge in the EIS relating to factual information on such matters as ecosystem function, resource abundance, distribution and quality and socio-economic well being and to the explanation of these facts and causal relationships between them.

This process must include the Naskapis of Quebec in addition to all other Aboriginal groups who are experienced and knowledgeable about the lands and resources of northern Labrador. While none of these groups have exclusive knowledge of particular areas, the experience of each group differs in terms of lands and water systems that they know best. Therefore consideration of the Aboriginal knowledge would be incomplete without the involvement of all Aboriginal groups with experience in this part of Labrador.

Impacts on the land claims. This section is addressed in point 1 of the previous section to this brief. To summarize it briefly, the Naskapis of Quebec have submitted a comprehensive Aboriginal land claim in Labrador which includes all lands and resources that are likely to be affected by the mining project. A response is expected in the near future on the acceptance of this claim by the federal government for negotiation.

Our position on the Voisey's Bay Environmental Impact Statement is that it cannot be separated from these land claims issues. The EIS approach should be in concert with federal recognition of Aboriginal rights and land claims, not to mention the policy of the federal government with respect to land claims.

So I guess that covers everything that we had to -- the principle points that we believe should be considered by the Panel. And we hope that you will take the time to look at our formal presentation to you.

Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Mameamskum. We really appreciate the fact that we know you have a longer presentation and that you have made the effort to summarize -- to keep it within the time lines at this time. And we have all had an opportunity to read through the complete presentation before this evening. So thank you.

Questions from the Panel?

MR. PETER USHER: I wonder if you can help us with some further information on the nature of your claim that you have submitted to Indian Affairs, and let me be clear about the reasons for asking that question.

We as a Panel, obviously, have no concern whatever with the merits of the claim or the substance of the claim. But we do have to consider the way in which parties may be affected by the project and therefore your information on land use and occupancy and related matters will be of some considerable interest to the Panel. And secondly, because we have indicated that we are prepared to hear statements on how a claim might be adversely affected by the project being undertaken prior to the settlement of a claim, I think we need to understand something of the nature of the claim and what that adverse effect might be.

So if you will understand my questions in that light, perhaps I could ask you, first of all, do you have any members in Labrador or are they all resident in Quebec?

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: All our members are resident in Quebec, but our agreement is very open on the aspect where any Naskapis, any person of Naskapis ancestry, can be a beneficiary of the Naskapis land claim settlement in Quebec, which could in fact theoretically apply to any Davis Inlet Band member.

MR. PETER USHER: If they in fact chose to be members of your agreement as opposed to whatever they might choose to negotiate on their own?

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: That is correct. They do have a choice. With reference to the same question you asked of my friend, Zebedee, earlier on this afternoon, you see, the whole membership question was put into perspective where certain people from the three groups would not benefit from two land claim settlements in terms of membership.

Kuujjuaq being a special interest area and a traditional living area of the Naskapis have some -- it's a peculiar arrangement. There is a Naskapi family in Kuujjuaq that is a member or beneficiary of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement. But on the other hand, he -- the family, some family members are Indians as such because of their Naskapi ancestry. This was not perceived during the negotiations. And we left it open because other native groups might want to negotiate their claims in Quebec.

I would like to mention also that the Naskapis Band of Quebec were ready to sign a land claims settlement with the Labrador Inuit Association for their rights -- for the recognition of their rights in their territory that is covered under the agreement. And the same offer has been extended to the Davis Inlet Band for reciprocal rights in the event that they do have a land claims settlement.

In terms of our land claims settlement being accepted by the federal government, we believe in all honesty that this claim would be accepted by the federal government because of recent Supreme Court judgments.

I don't know if that answers all of your questions, Mr. Usher.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, it is a start. You have mentioned that you do not in fact have any members in Labrador. Do your members who are, as I assume, all beneficiaries of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement of 1978, do any of those people now harvest extensively in Labrador and do you have any documentation of that? I see that you refer to a number of documents in your statement and I am wondering -- documents by Cram, Hammond, Weiler. Are these documents that would be available to us so we could better understand the nature of your use and occupancy?

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: These are available to the Panel if they so wish, and we could be -- we could clarify our land use more specifically in the second round of hearings in the near future. The Naskapis harvest, still harvest in Labrador. The geese hunting is still going on in Labrador as far as I am concerned. I was there last Saturday. We still harvest a lot of caribou in Labrador.

MR. PETER USHER: I am not expressing any doubts about that. I am just asking if we can get any documentation of it because I would guess that we will need that at some point in our deliberations and possibly to the extent that you are asking the proponent to document certain things, that these things would also have to be available to the proponent.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: Well, we will once we know what the Panel really wants, the Naskapis will clarify their position on this.

My colleague here says we just submitted three reports.

MR. PETER USHER: Which would those be? Submitted to whom?

MR. JOHN BAIRD: To Brian.

MR. PETER USHER: Oh, right now?

MR. JOHN BAIRD: This afternoon.

MR. PETER USHER: Okay. And would these include the maps of your land use and occupancy?

MR. JOHN BAIRD: The maps weren't there. They will be forwarded.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Could I ask you to answer that question into a mike so that we could keep it on the record.

MR. JOHN BAIRD: The maps will be forwarded within a few days.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: The maps will be forwarded within a few days.

MR. PETER USHER: Okay. Do these maps indicate whether the use is, I know for a claim you can go back some period of time. But for the purposes of this review, it might be interesting to know the extent of somewhat more recent use and occupancy. Is that in any way distinguished on the maps that you will be submitting?

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: We can present you the same maps that we presented to the court.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, this is not a court of law and the question at hand here is not necessarily the one which a court would address. We are asking a fairly specific question and I think we need a fairly specific answer.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: Yes.

MR. PETER USHER: Thank you.

I mean perhaps it is already answered in these documents that have been provided, and if it is, excuse me. But you know, if I haven't been provided with the documents in advance, I don't know that.

Are there people -- well, I will not pursue that line. I will read this first. But what I would like to ask you then, if I may, is so that we understand possibly the impact of this project if it were to proceed in advance of your claim being settled, what, in a general way without revealing your particular negotiating strategy, what kinds of rights you might be seeking in the area of the project?

And I am thinking here of whether what you are putting forward is a claim which is by its nature an overlap claim in which you would want to assure yourselves that matters of mutual harvesting rights and management rights were taken care of. Or whether what you are advancing is a claim that might entitle you to for example, the negotiation of an Impact Benefit Agreement or to select lands within the area around Voisey's Bay.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: The thing is, Mr. Usher, we have to look at both sides of the border. We are not going to -- certainly not going to select land where environmental damage has been -- is going to take place. That certainly didn't happen in the James Bay negotiations. On top of that, we are very concerned about the impacts of the project on the caribou migratory patterns and migratory routes. And we are very concerned on the impacts it will have on the headwaters which will impact upon our outfitting operations near the border area.

But I would like to point out, Mr. Usher, that we can't -- I don't know if I can answer more of what you want because I don't know what I am going to be offered when I go to the negotiating table or even before I get there.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, there are a number of publications which indicate what it is that is normally encompassed in the land claim settlement and we go back to as far as 1981 when the federal government published, I believe it is called "Outstanding Business" or whatever which is quite clear about the subjects which are included in the claim.

And my question to you is, and I suppose perhaps I could rephrase it. In terms of your land use and occupancy, if I can use the terms that have already been introduced today, whether you define something which is called a core area as opposed to something which was called a secondary area? Is there any distinction there? Because it seems to me that the nature of the rights asserted are somewhat different, and as I say, the possibility of the project proceeding might impact rights differently if we understood that distinction. And that is merely what I am trying to get at.

I mean as I said, under the claims policy you are perfectly entitled to go to the table and negotiate things relating to land selection and so on and I am wondering if that is exactly what you propose to do in the Voisey's Bay area?

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: Regardless of what the policy was in 1981 and now, but the recent Supreme Court judgments have reversed the policy of the federal government and its approach in granting the right to negotiate their claims in any part of Canada, not just Quebec and Labrador.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, I do not seem to be getting an answer that I am looking for. Maybe these documents will supply it.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: Maybe the answer that you are looking for are there, Mr. Usher. And I don't know why you are asking me these kinds of questions because you were involved to some degree in the James Bay Negotiations on the Inuit side.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, as a matter of fact, I wasn't, sir. But I have tried to make very clear why I am asking the questions.

If we do not understand the possible adverse effects of the project proceeding in advance of your negotiating a claims settlement in respect of the area that you have claimed, then we are not in a position to make a judgment about whatever adverse effects there might be.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: Well, I don't know, Mr. Usher. But the thing is specific on the guidelines right now, section 5.1.2., the Panel may consider the relationship between the project and land claims negotiations.

MR. PETER USHER: And that is exactly what I am trying to do. But perhaps we have gone as far as we can go with this. Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other questions from Panel members?

Thank you very much, Mr. Mameamskum, for your presentation.

MR. JOHN MAMEAMSKUM: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that Daniel Ashini will not be making a presentation as originally scheduled, is that correct?

In which case I would like to go to the next presenter, Linda Anderson. Excuse me, just before you start, I wonder if I could ask you when you speak into the mike, if you could bring it up about the same distance I am using.

MS LINDA ANDERSON: This close?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it will help people here. And if I can also remind you that we are looking for the presentation to be about 20 minutes and I will let you know when you are within five minutes of that.

MS LINDA ANDERSON: Thank you. Good evening. I am Linda Anderson. I thank you very much for allowing us to speak. We are speaking on behalf of a collective of women. I will not be making the presentation, but I will be available for questioning to assist Mrs. Lyall. So Mrs. Hilda Lyall, my colleague, will present our oral submission. Later this evening we will also present a longer document.

Thank you.

MS HILDA LYALL: First of all, I would like to say my name is Hilda Lyall and regarding Voisey's Bay, it is kind of close to my family because my husband's mother is from Voisey's Bay. She was raised and born up there. So it is kind of close to us.

As part of its work in the central and northern communities in the region, Labrador Legal Services is in a position to observe much of the negative and seedier part of life. Among other things, cultural values have been stripped creating much havoc, discord and conflict. There is a high rate of contact with the criminal justice system, which we feel is indicative of many other social factors. Families are coping with many difficulties and disruptions.

As a component of its anti-violence initiatives, Labrador Legal Services has been networking with many other agencies, which has allowed us to develop some insights into issues affecting women. Women still make up a vulnerable group who will be affected greatly by further outside impacts on their lives and those of their children and grandchildren.

Women in all societies, and very strikingly in Aboriginal groups, are the preservers and promoters of cultural and traditional values. Already there are extra stresses upon them to preserve these values. We feel that their views must be an integral part of any assessment and review of proposed developments affecting their homelands and the future of their homes and cultures. Any potential impacts, negative or positive, should be viewed for potential implications on future generations.

We are giving this presentation in the spirit that we feel that the mine/mill operation will proceed.

When developing guidelines for the EIS, there must be emphasis on the following issues as identified by a collective of women from various parts of Labrador. While north coast women are closest and most affected by the project, all women in Labrador have a stake in the development and management of the mine/mill site as well as the decommissioning. These women's voices must be heard.

These recommendations focus mainly on the construction and operational phases, although some mention is given to the decommissioning phase as well.

We would also like to draw the company's and Panel's attention to the experience of BHP in the Northwest Territories and the Socio-Agreement Agreement between those two parties. That agreement covers many aspects of mitigation of negative impacts while emphasizing employment equity for northern residents.

Also the Raglin Mine in Northern Quebec has set ratios of hiring for northern people, although not specifically for women. However, we expect that in this region employment equity will be a priority with the proponent.

Monitoring plans have to be developed to include gender analysis. Mitigation of socio-economic and social impacts must be viewed for gender and age differences.

While many of our recommendations will be geared towards Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, we know that the pressure has to be put on government regulatory bodies to allow for policy development and legislative change. It is necessary to recognize that pressure must also be placed on subsidiary contractors, affiliated unions and stakeholder Aboriginal groups.

We are talking about making changes to existing conditions so that practices of the past are not continued under this development.

Environmental issues and policy. Women's voices spoke clearly and strongly that the powers of enforcement would be a major factor in the successful management of environmental concerns in the region as pertinent to the mine/mill site. Several factors must be established as baseline requirements for management resources to be achieved successfully.

The government departments concerned, both federal and provincial, must consult with the affected citizens in an ongoing way to assure appropriate local, ground level feedback that will truly reflect the needs and priority areas for enforcement.

We are already witnessing pressures on the environment in varied ways. Nesting sites of birds have been disrupted. The migration patterns of caribou have been disturbed and local ecological knowledge in this has been discounted. There is tremendous pressure on wildlife due to the increased interest and activity generated by recreational and sporting activities of population at the camp. Helicopters and aircraft travelling through the region startle wildlife and the effects are yet to be measured.

Policies are simply unable to deal adequately with the problems. We expect VBN and subsidiary companies will set leadership roles regarding exploitation of resources and perpetration of illegal acts.

We expect every effort to be made to prevent or stop exploitative situations at their roots. It is expected that all concerned Aboriginal organizations having influence in this area will exercise that influence with vigour.

It is imperative that environmental monitoring positions be not simply observing and reporting. Observing and reporting and acting on violations makes the positions more viable.

As collective of Labrador women we say to governments and companies, "We expect you to be responsible corporate citizens while inhabiting our region. We will hold you accountable."

We expect government, Aboriginal organizations and company hiring practices will reflect adequate and balanced gender representation in the training and staffing of these positions. This will ensure women's voices are heard in policy development.

We are unclear, due to inadequate information flow, as to the actual proposed dimensions of the mine or mill operations. How much actual land mass will be seconded for the venture? What level of infrastructure will be necessary on this land mass? We insist on meaningful, continuous dialogue with women in this region to ensure appropriate feedback on environment policy successes and failures.

Mine development and facilities. Attempts to accommodate women at the camp site must recognize the unique problems of being a woman in a social environment that is predominantly male. The company must ensure that the quality of facilities for women is such that they do not contribute to stress for women on site.

In our consultations women have expressed concerns in the following areas: security, environmental and policy concerns; how much training for safety is there, in particular for women and associated jobs risks; also regarding education and awareness of cultural differences or beliefs surrounding safety; enforcement of harassment policies must be strong and companies need to conduct information campaigns to outline definitions of harassment. All workers must understand what behavior is appropriate.

We expect that the company will address the following factors in ensuring interest and barrier-free access to employment at the site: training; hiring practices; work practices and equipment; accommodations; sexual and gender harassment; family responsibility problems; any other factors working against active participation in the workforce.

Some suggestions offered for integrating women into the workforce in appropriate ways are training ombudswomen on site for each shift rotation to allow access to venues for venting and bringing forward complaints safely. A room where women can meet. Accommodation of married couples. Allocating time for women's recreational needs. Female security staff, particularly in female dormitories. Orientation to the workplace training. Respect and dignity be insisted upon and modelled by management and corporate staff in all interactions with women. Systemic barriers to integration of women, especially Aboriginal women, in the workplace, how and why they exist. Attempts to segregate women within male dominated work areas. Sensitivity in issues re: gender.

We expect completely that the company provide a proactive approach in an employment equity plan shared with communities that is clear on the routes from recruitment strategies to training, jobs, advancement and promotion. It should promote the project's commitment to equality including the strategies to be used to achieve this. Provision of child care supports that support the needs of both male and female workers. Provision of child care supports that allow female entrepreneurs to explore spin-off business ventures.

Make mandatory orientation to workplace training for all employees, sensitivity training component to address and create awareness of gender differences. Implement as a component of orientation to workplace training, training in the area of stress management and coping skills. Establish in a sensitive approach, environmentally and gender friendly facilities as determined by women, particularly on-site women or women impacted by the decisions.

Corporate staff and on-site managers must be mandated to take appropriate training in the areas of sensitivity, cross-cultural awareness, gender communications and any other training deemed appropriate in consultation with the women's advisory groups and be expected to model behaviour. Training for female staff be completed with an eye to management level positions as well as entry level jobs.

Female ombudswomen be staffed at the corporate human resources level to ensure appropriate monitoring and reporting back of the results in an ongoing manner. Policies related to on-site intoxication must reflect an awareness of the impact on women's safety.

On mental and physical health. Women collectively expressed grave concerns for the implications of mine/mine development and employment. The concerns were expressed from several perspectives as relates to mental health issues and physical health.

It is strongly felt that accurate baseline indicators reflecting not only community differences in data collection, but also a breakdown of gender and age data be used for analysis of health statistics.

The site must be sensitive to women's needs and be environmentally gender friendly. Women hired by contractors and sub-contractors may be subject to less than ideal working conditions. Pressures on the land can have damaging effects on physical and mental well being of communities, particularly women who are often not in power positions to effect policy changes to prevent this. Subtle discrimination tactics have effects on mental health, pride in work, sense of fulfilment, erosion of self-image and destroy faith in policies.

There are often long term health concerns for situations that are not addressed in a meaningful way. Communication skills are not part of training at orientation, then both male and female staff may suffer unnecessary consequences as a result of misunderstandings. Lack of appropriate day care will have detrimental effects for women. The potential for exploitation of resources, people and heritage is great.

Employment concerns, impacts and policy recommendations. The opportunity for employment was regarded cautiously as a positive impact. It was felt that much work needed to be one to ensure the impact remained positive. The company, governments, attendant stakeholders and affiliated subsidiary unions and contractors must comprehensively work together to guarantee success of policy, legislation, contracts or commitments. A solid workforce will depend on efforts to successfully encourage and recruit potential candidates for employment. Any suggested pre-employment/employment training programs must be identified in the EIS.

Encouraging women in the mining field cannot simply be patriarchal. The jobs to date held by women in the exploration phase have not encouraged the belief that women will be accessing non-traditional jobs or managerial level jobs to any great degree. How does the company correct this impression?

It is imperative that systemic measures be implemented by this EIS to ensure hiring, retention and promotion of women with Voisey's Bay Nickel.

The experience of women hired by sub-contractors at BHP mine leads us to believe that this company must take a leadership role with its sub-contractors and give us some guarantee of protection regarding potential abuses and problems.

Outlined below are some of our concerns and recommendations regarding employment on site as recorded from our consultations.

Training must be linked to employment. Management and corporate levels to oversee human resource policy development intervene in problem areas and keep insights and analysis focused adequately on women's concerns. We expect the development of a consulting panel of women from Labrador to advise on issues of harassment, cross-cultural and gender sensitivity. Grievance procedures must be clear and user friendly. Recruitment must be a public process in consultation with local employment agencies in consultation with local groups.

Criminal justice issues. We feel that the development will put additional strain on justice, social and correctional services currently available. We feel that with the influx of people into the site area this creates further stress and strain on community life.

There may be increased sense of fear around personal safety in home communities of the region. How do people retain their feeling of security for themselves and their children?

Women are often the victim of violence and we would like to see measures developed on the front end to alleviate and mitigate these issues. Access to alcohol and illegal drugs may become more common. These issues are explored more fully in our larger document.

In conclusion, please listen to our voices. Many women have participated in this process and the report I have just given reflects our concerns and recommendations for reinforcing positive approaches as well as ways to monitor and mitigate negative impacts.

We have covered ground in environmental, facilities, communications, employment and training, criminal justice and traditional life impacts. The larger document that we are submitting to the Panel covers all these items extensively, which we anticipate you will read with great interest.

Some overriding questions, concerns that we are still unsure about as well as some recommendations.

What is the size of the land mass that the project will encompass for all activities and the potential impacts on that land? What happens to the families who use those lands to pursue traditional activities? What about the expropriation of those lands? The financial costs must be equitable while the loss of traditional values can never be compensated.

Can other companies in the general area of this project piggy-back on this EIS process to develop mine activities? As a group, we examined highlights of the BHP mine in the Northwest Territories and a report done on Hibernia by Women in Trades and Technology, Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter. The Panel and proponent may find them as useful as we did.

The decommissioning process needs to be closely planned to offset emotional and mental stresses. What percentage of company profits will be allocated to the reclamation of the land to as close as possible to its original state? What are some of the physical health hazards that might impede this process? What structures need to be developed to deal with all the outfall?

Impact on traditional life. We feel that the project will dramatically change lifestyles and cause people to develop new skills. However, the cultural aspects may never be able to be reclaimed. Some issues that we would like to see resolved at the front end is not to allow exploitation of artifacts and sentimental items.

The scope of this project is overwhelming to some of us and we try to think of the development as positive as well as a negative piece of our lives. But the learning process will be hard. How do we mesh the two lifestyles?

We advocate for the establishment of a women's advisory body to advise companies on all policy affecting women in employment, family, health, environment, communications and impacts to traditional lifestyle and land use. The larger submission will cover all of these and other concerns in greater detail.

Thank you very much for your attention and we hope you will read our document in the spirit that continues to be open to collaboration and consultation with women throughout this whole process. And thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mrs. Lyall, for your presentation and thank you, Ms Anderson.

I would like to start with a question of clarification. You referred to yourselves or I gather that this submission has been prepared through the efforts of a collective of women. You also made reference very early on to the Labrador Legal Services.

I wonder if you could clarify who the collective of women were, what the connection with Labrador Legal Services is and what kind of a consultation process you went through to prepare this document? If you could give us some more of the background to what you are presenting.

MS LINDA ANDERSON: Okay. I will try to deal with that one.

Labrador Legal Services have been doing a lot of work around anti-violence. We work with the courts and correctional institutions, so we have been in a position to see women as a particularly vulnerable group that could not deal with another set of pressures on their life. Therefore we agreed that it would be a good idea to get women together from a number of communities and a number of backgrounds.

However, the weather didn't cooperate very well with us over the past weekend, but we did manage about -- I guess around 20 women. Actually the weather worked with us a little bit because some women were in the community here and couldn't get back to their home communities. Therefore we had to do a lot of the consultation by telephone, fax, teleconference and so on. We developed some guidelines with the core of women and which other women commented on.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You are saying that this is something which you have done in the last couple of weeks. So your original idea was to have a large conference of women from Labrador?

MS LINDA ANDERSON: Yes. That's correct.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Were you able to get representatives from all the, for example, all the communities that the Panel has visited? Perhaps you do not know who we visited.

MS LINDA ANDERSON: Well, I think we have. We did have women -- we had only one woman from Nain and we had one woman from Davis Inlet. We didn't get anybody from Makkovik and I knew you visited there, but we did consult with them by the teleconference.

THE CHAIRPERSON: So most of the women were from which communities?

MS LINDA ANDERSON: We had them from Nain, Davis Inlet. Well, we consulted in some way with almost all communities including Lodge Bay and Cartwright and of course Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Sheshatshit.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just to follow up on that, you have made recommendations that on an ongoing basis there should be continued involvement by a panel, a number of advisory panels. Perhaps you could tell me a little bit more about that? One panel, a women's advisory panel or several and how would you propose that those should be formed? And how would you make sure that they were representative of women in the immediate area, particularly of the project?

MS LINDA ANDERSON: What the women talked about on the weekend a lot was there has to be a process whereby women can participate in policy development and as well as monitoring of what is happening especially in terms of women's employment and the ways women are impacted. We hope that when we presented to the Panel and to the companies that this would be built into the EIS in terms of developing with communities and with women's groups a process whereby this could happen.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Questions from other Panel members? Lorraine?

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Hello. A couple of questions, sort of basic ones that we have been asking a number of groups, other community groups and other presentations by women. I won't ask them all because other Panel members may ask a couple of them, so I will ask two key ones I think.

One of the issues around the preparation of the EIS for the proponent will be the gathering of information with regard to socio-economic impacts. And that will mean gathering information about how women and the communities, but specifically because of your context, will be directly impacted. Did you have any conversation about -- because it is a sensitive thing to gather that kind of information and I am sure that the Labrador Legal Services would have some statistics, et cetera, around the issue of violence against women.

Do you have ideas about how the proponent can gather information that they might be asked to gather for the EIS or did you have that kind of conversation at all? If you did not, do you as individuals have any suggestions, ideas?

MS LINDA ANDERSON: As the women, you know, collectively didn't discuss particular issues around how to collect data, but I know community groups have developed ethical guidelines around collecting data and I am sure the Panel and the proponent can use those.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Okay. One other question then and again it may be something you have not discussed or maybe it is in the bigger paper that you are presenting to us.

A lot of your presentation seemed to be looking at employment, women in the workforce at the proposed mine and mill. So whether it is women who would be working on site or whether it is women who would be at home with partners working on site, did you have any discussion about the impact around the fly-in/fly-out operation?

MS LINDA ANDERSON: Yes, there was a lot of discussion around women on the work site, as well as women left at home coping with families and the kinds of pressures that puts on families, and that is in our larger documents, some concerns that were raised as well as some recommendations on some mitigative measures that could be taken. But it was a major concern.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Okay. So there are recommendations in the major document. Thank you very much.

MR. SAM METCALFE: Considering that the proposed mine/mill will be a fly-in/fly-out operation, you mentioned about day care, did you mean day care on site, and can you just tell the Panel a little bit more about or expand on that?

MS LINDA ANDERSON: Okay. That was a real struggle for us because we didn't want to advocate the building of a new community in the region. We certainly think you caught us on that one. But we were quite aware of day care needs for women and we struggled with that and we did not come up with a final position on what day care measures should be taken or be put in place.

MS HILDA LYALL: In the larger document there is some mention of child care. What people want to work in Voisey's Bay or if the men are babysitting and women. We mentioned that. We were talking about it, but it is in the larger document.

MR. SAM METCALFE: Nakummek.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you very much to both of you for the presentation and yes, we do look forward to receiving and reading the larger document and thank you for answering our questions.

MS LINDA ANDERSON: Well, thank you from all the women.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to suggest that before we go to the next presenters that we take a ten minute break and then we will have a presentation from VBNC. Thank you.

--- Upon recessing at 8:12 p.m.

--- Upon resuming at 8:29 p.m.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, let's get started again please.

Our next presentation is by Voisey's Bay Nickel Company and we have Bevin LeDrew and Bill Napier who will be making the presentation.

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Bill Napier will be making the presentation this evening. But before he does, I thought I would offer an explanation and an apology to the Panel.

We endeavoured to get our submission to the Panel far enough in advance that they could have an opportunity to review that material and better ask questions here this evening. We were successful in getting a single copy to the Panel in Postville but I know that really did not help a lot and it was only this afternoon that they got a full set of copies of that material. I apologize for that and hope that you have had sufficient opportunity to review the material.

THE CHAIRPERSON: We got to read it over suppertime. So yes, we have had at least a quick look.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Thank you, Bevin.

Madam Chair and members of the Review Panel, ladies and gentlemen. My name is William Napier. I am Vice President of Environment, Health and Safety for Voisey's Bay Nickel Company. I am responsible for those aspects of the corporation. I am joining Mr. LeDrew, Manager of Assessment, who is responsible for the Environmental Impact Statement, to make this presentation this evening.

During the scoping sessions we have made ourselves available to the Panel. At the request of the Panel, Mr. LeDrew has coordinated responses to all queries and requests for clarification. And I am glad you had an opportunity to read the submission because I will be referring to it throughout this oral presentation.

Our written submission contains both general and specific comments. The specific comments provide a detailed discussion on the Draft Guidelines in a chronological format. The general comments discuss the scope of the assessment, Aboriginal knowledge, public consultation and the precautionary principle. This presentation is being currently translated into Innu-eimun and Inuktitut and should be available shortly.

The purpose of this presentation this evening is to provide you with our input regarding the Draft Guidelines which are currently being reviewed during these scoping sessions. For brevity, this evening's oral presentation to the Panel will focus on three of those topics. Firstly, Aboriginal knowledge; secondly, public consultation and thirdly, land claims. However, we are prepared to discuss any aspect of the written submission, therefore I have asked our key legal and technical advisors to attend this evening's session.

VBNC believes that the Panel's issues scoping has to great extent confirmed the results of our own scoping issues. That is not to say that the project is not of extreme interest to many of the potentially affected parties, but rather the interest is appropriately focused in this region with all those parties and representative bodies who have regulatory and community responsibility and interests participating in the process.

Due to scheduling problems, we are making this presentation today before the presentation of key intervenors. As a result, we request that the Panel accommodate additional written responses to other submissions and previous submissions. So we wish to submit those additional comments and we will do those immediately after the last scoping sessions.

Now, I would like to briefly discuss our experience of incorporating Aboriginal knowledge into the Environmental Impact Statement and some of our thoughts relating to Aboriginal knowledge and the environmental assessment process.

We have made substantial efforts to gather available information relative to Aboriginal knowledge from primary and secondary sources for the consideration in the Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, we have facilitated the presentation of such knowledge by Aboriginal persons and parties themselves to the Panel for its overall environmental assessment requirements through the funding of the Innu Nation and LIA studies.

And indeed, Madam Chair, when you and the Panel were up at the Nain presentation, a portion of this study was presented to you and the videographers in Davis Inlet were part of our study -- or of the study we are funding.

The Panel has outlined in section 3.5 of the Draft Guidelines how full consideration of Aboriginal knowledge is proposed to be considered. We are committed to the consideration of Aboriginal knowledge and expertise in the environmental assessment process to the extent that such knowledge is made available by Aboriginal groups. In fact, the Draft Guidelines make the important point that expertise is evolving with respect to Aboriginal knowledge and also "TEK." And this is reflective how VBNC views the contribution of Aboriginal knowledge in the environmental assessment.

We have worked with both LIA and Innu Nation to apply knowledge that is not limited necessarily to "TEK." Like the Panel, we agree that it is important that the manner in which Aboriginal knowledge is assessed and presented should not be predetermined, and that also is reflected in the Draft Guidelines.

We also recognize the importance of incorporating Aboriginal knowledge in the environmental assessment process, and as outlined below, sought to facilitate the collection and articulation of such information. We have sought to establish a cooperative and working relationship with the Innu Nation and LIA that would enable the integration of this information into the overall environmental assessment process and more specifically in the Environmental Impact Statement.

And that is an important point that I would like to come to later in the presentation, the difference between the Aboriginal knowledge in the EIS and also in the environmental assessment process.

We began discussions with the Aboriginal groups on Aboriginal knowledge in 1995 when IBA negotiations were first initiated. At that time, the Innu Nation and LIA insisted that an issues scoping exercise be conducted prior to the initiation of any community-based information collection. An agreement was reached in late 1995 and consultants were retained by both groups.

The Innu Nation retained the Taiga Institute to conduct issues scoping and that report was completed in February, 1996. In addition, the Innu Nation, with full funding and limited participation by us, established a task force on mining activities and their report came out in March, 1996, entitled "Between a Rock and a Hard Place."

LIA retained a consultant to undertake the issues scoping study. Work was initiated in February, 1996, and the LIA report "See the Land is Seeing Ourselves" was completed in July, 1996. And incidentally both those reports have been included in the MOU and actually provides a pre-text for the issues scoping exercise and portions of the issues scoping exercise has now been completed.

Following the issues scoping work completed by the Taiga Institute, the Innu Nation and the company established a joint committee which held a series of meetings to develop a detailed terms of reference for six studies. Following a workshop funded by VBNC, which included the participation of the Innu Nation and their consultants, the Innu Nation reached their decision not to proceed with this initiative and advised the company that additional effort consisting of a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract would be required.

A specific proposal for such a study was not provided until an IBA meeting in November, 1996 and the Innu Nation then prepared the basis of the contract, which was successfully negotiated with VBNC, and an agreement between VBNC and the Innu Nation for funding was announced in February, 1997. This study will be completed this December.

The LIA submitted a proposal for the study of Inuit environmental knowledge to VBNC in January of this year. And an agreement for funding of this study was signed a month later in February and data collection is currently under way.

We will integrate all available results of the Innu Nation and LIA studies into our EIS wherever possible and as appropriate. The incorporation of any results of these studies into the EIS will be decided in consultation with the LIA and Innu Nation.

This may be become problematic because we need access to the information. If it is restricted, we have an inability to incorporate it into the documentation. In addition, if we do have access to the information, we need the ability to use the information.

A number of additional initiatives have been undertaken by us to integrate Aboriginal knowledge into the environmental assessment and particularly project operations. Some of these efforts include the following.

We have developed a statement of principles to conduct research studies. We have compiled a literature review of secondary sources of traditional ecological knowledge. The Innu Nation has enabled us to access a considerable volume of existing community ecological knowledge and demographic information. And we have funded a special edition of Them Days magazine which focuses on Voisey's Bay area and presents the history of occupation and resource use over the last 200 years which includes much information on the settlers. We have held two workshops in Nain on shipping and we have held a workshop at Voisey's Bay on the management of black bears.

We have made a number of attempts to obtain specific input, particularly Aboriginal input, into identifying environmental effects and appropriate mitigative measures. We have with limited exceptions received little encouragement. We continue to seek cooperatively and identify ways in which fuller information might be provided to Aboriginal communities and to develop a better understanding of Aboriginal concerns.

We will continue to welcome guidance from the Panel regarding further steps which might be pursued by us in continuing any efforts to facilitate the presentation of Aboriginal knowledge to the Panel. We will continue in our efforts to provide relevant information to the Aboriginal communities and to continue to seek and assist in the gathering, organization and presentation of Aboriginal knowledge. Our efforts are limited to the extent in which Aboriginal groups choose to cooperate with our company.

In our document on page 8, Figure 1, we have illustrated the relationship between the EIS and the EA process, which I have discussed earlier, and the avenues through which Aboriginal knowledge can be presented to the Panel in an overall environmental assessment process for the project. We recognize that these are avenues for the Panel to obtain Aboriginal knowledge as part of the environmental assessment. The EIS is only one available pathway.

The chart underscores a more general point concerning the treatment of Aboriginal knowledge in the Draft Guidelines and its role in the Environmental Impact Statement. The EIS should not be considered the sole and exclusive source of information for the Panel's environmental assessment. The EIS is only one component of the information base needed by the Panel to fill their mandate. If the EIS is indeed interpreted in such a way as a sole source of information, the Panel's public and technical hearings will be rendered redundant.

The verification of baseline information can be obtained by the Panel through the presentation of findings of research conducted by LIA and Innu Nation and the submissions of others during the Panel hearings. This procedure is consistent with CEAA and the Draft Guidelines.

We have a number of ways that we are working with the Aboriginal groups. We have technical liaison committees at site with environmental advisors. This committee and these workers, full time workers, provide us with an opportunity to determine ways of conducting our activities, our current activities in an environmentally prudent manner.

The treatment of Aboriginal knowledge within the Draft Guidelines should reflect the fact that VBN will only be able to produce and include information within the EIS to which it has access or which it may be reasonably expected to acquire through appropriate diligence with the cooperation of third parties without breaching obligations of confidentiality. We cannot be reasonably expected to produce information which is within the exclusive control of a third party who chooses not to provide full access of such information.

Our review of Aboriginal knowledge in the preparation of the EIS and continuation of the environmental assessment process can be characterized in the following manner. Primary Aboriginal knowledge can only be obtained with the consent of the LIA and Innu Nation. The EIS is based on currently available Aboriginal knowledge and this information can be incorporated into the Environmental Impact Statement.

The proponent, if requested, will facilitate Aboriginal knowledge incorporation in the environmental assessment process by providing project description information directly to the communities, consulting with the communities on project design, operation and schedule. The proponent is prepared to consult with the communities on project effects and take into account local residents' knowledge on the existing environment.

This Panel will have an opportunity to evaluate the effects of the project when additional Aboriginal knowledge will be presented during the hearing process. And finally, the gathering, articulation and incorporation of Aboriginal knowledge is an ongoing feature of the project and will be included during construction, operation and closure of the project. And indeed, provisions for Aboriginal knowledge have been incorporated into the IBA which is currently being negotiated.

The second point I would like to discuss briefly is communications and public consultation.

Public consultation is an integral part of our issues scoping for the environmental assessment, and we have consulted with the provincial and federal governments, the Innu Nation, the LIA, interest groups and the general public. Consultation mechanisms have varied depending on their suitability for specific groups. And a summary of the consultations completed to date is included in Appendix A.

And I hope that maybe during dessert when you were looking at our presentation, you had a chance to take a look at Appendix A where it had a list of 12 pages of the amount of great effort we have tried to do in consultation effort with Labrador and communities including Goose Bay and the coast.

We have opened offices in Nain in early 1996 and Goose Bay in early 1997. These offices serve as centres for public information and communication and are staffed by local residents. The office in Nain has capability for Inuktitut and the office here in Goose Bay as capability for Innu-eimum.

This community presence has given us an exceptional capacity to develop a neighbourly low-key relationship with the residents. Our community presence has permitted us to enter into regular dialogues with residents based on the spirit of informality.

A program of community visits was carried out focused on informal meetings, school visits and briefings on community organizations which include the council, elders, women's groups, harvesters and youth. To date we estimate that we have had a total of 176 such meetings which have been held with an attendance approaching 3,500 people.

We have also conducted a number of open houses along the northern Labrador coast to provide information and receive comments from residents on project development. An initial series of open houses was held to present plans for the mine/mill development. Our staff visited Postville, Makkovik, Rigolet, Nain, Goose Bay in November and December of 1995 and Davis Inlet and Hopedale and Sheshatshit in February of 1996.

We also held a second round of open houses in Nain, Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik, Goose Bay and Rigolet between July and August of last year. The purpose of these open houses was to update project information for community residents and receive comments on issues of concern. And hearing some of the comments during the Panel hearings to date, it is due for another round of community visits.

Although we contacted the Innu Nation regarding the summer of 1996 open houses in Sheshatshit and Davis Inlet, the Innu Nation raised objections and the open houses were cancelled. The total attendance at these open houses at the other communities was estimated at 1,400 people. During these open houses all poster and hand-out material were available in three languages.

We have also arranged workshops to provide an opportunity for interested parties to discuss specific aspects of the project in detail. An archaeological workshop was held here in Goose Bay in February of 1996 which led to the development of a VBNC funded cooperative archaeologic study between the Innu Nation, LIA and ourselves.

In the spring of last year, an Innu Nation consultant engineer participated in the design of our acid rock drainage studies. During this time also, workshops were held on tailings and mine waste management.

In early 1996, workshops were held with the Innu Nation and LIA to discuss tailings impoundment design and acid rock studies. These were done primarily as design and information sessions and they were not construed nor considered to be Aboriginal knowledge workshops. At the site the Innu Nation environmental observer and consulting engineer and our geotechnical engineers evaluated the tailings in waste rock areas.

Two workshops were held in May, 1996 to discuss various proposed environmental studies for the upcoming season for 1996. In St. John's we had approximately 60 people and here in Goose Bay we had approximately 51 people. And the Goose Bay workshop was designed for the participation of Aboriginal groups.

Thus far we have had two workshops on shipping which were held in Nain, and a third one is planned at the end of this month.

A public information program was initiated in August, 1996 to inform the Community of Nain of the environmental baseline studies. Last year we had approximately 50 people working up collecting environmental work at the site. As the senior scientific advisors were available, we asked them to go to Nain, which they did, and presented information to the local residents.

Weekly information sessions focused on archaeology, environmental assessment, tailings and contaminants and environmental protection. Fifty-four (54) people attended these sessions.

Presentations on the 1996 archaeological field program was given in Davis Inlet in December of last year. And this information was presented to the Band Council and students.

We have continued to hold meetings with various parties, including government agencies, to discuss specific issues. And when requested, we have met with the LIA and the Innu Nation and meetings have been held in communities along the Labrador coast, Goose Bay and St. John's.

As I indicated earlier, there are technical liaison committees were established to address operational issues related to exploration and development activities at the Voisey's Bay site. And these committees meet regularly and the Aboriginal observer has been funded by the company.

Because mining is relatively new in northern Labrador, we have offered a number of site visits to operating mines that have been arranged and paid for by the company. And some of these mines are located in northern climes. For example, we organized three trips to the Red Dog Mine in northwest Alaska for the Innu and LIA members. We organized a trip to the Louvicort mine in Quebec and also the Sudbury operations.

For the past two years, the VBNC public consultation program has been broadly based, employing a variety of methods focused on north coast communities. And as you can see from Appendix A, we have worked very hard and believe we have done a very good job in attempting to consult with residents.

For the environmental assessment phase of the project planning, we hope and will continue to apply the methods described above. In particular, we are now producing videos to describe the project, its existing environment and our approach of addressing issues.

I would now like to discuss the third point and that is land claims. And as referenced earlier today, section 5.1.2 of the Draft Guidelines has a land claim provision.

We submit that the Panel does not have the authority under CEAA to consider the relationship between land claim negotiations and the development of the project. Therefore, in our respectful view, the Draft Guidelines should not bring these complex issues related to land claims within the Panel's scope of review.

Further we have understood that the purpose of the guidelines is to provide guidance to VBNC in its efforts to produce a comprehensive, relevant and accessible EIS which will be, as stated in the guidelines, sufficient to proceed to public hearings. We have no information relating to the current status of separate land claims negotiations of either the LIA or the Innu Nation, or any other Aboriginal group for that matter, with the federal and provincial governments, as we are not party to those negotiations and those discussions.

Additionally, we have no means of acquiring such information as the negotiations are proceeding on a confidential basis. We believe that if the Panel does indeed consider this relationship, the Final Guidelines should be revised to recognize our inability to provide any meaningful information in this area.

In closing, Madam Chair, Review Panel, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the opportunity for making this presentation. We are working very hard with our engineers, scientists and social economists to participate in a comprehensive environmental assessment. Our team is applying a very high level of project planning that incorporates environmental design and effective environmental management strategies.

It is our intent to implement this project in a manner that will be respectful of the way of life of Aboriginal groups. We are committed to the achievement of the significant benefits of the project in a manner that will be consistent with the wishes and aspirations of the people of this region.

And before I close, I know that one of your -- the key issues that have been brought forward has been the exploration works for 1997. If you wish we can make a brief statement on those works, or our presentation is completed. It is up to you. Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: No, please carry on.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Well, I would like to ask Mr. Mark Sheppard, our chief legal officer, to make a statement on the 1997 exploration works.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Madam Chair, members of the Panel, good evening. I have a tough act to follow after my colleague, Mr. Napier.

I wonder if you might want to give me some direction as to which particular issues you wish to speak about in terms of the advanced exploration work?

THE CHAIRPERSON: At this point it was my understanding that Mr. Napier said you were going to make a short statement.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Is there an area of particular interest that you might wish us to speak to?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think if you have something that you wish to share with us, please do so if it is brief. And then I think we will probably be wanting to start off with the questions with respect to Mr. Napier's presentation.

I didn't mean when I responded to your suggestion that we are at this point ready to launch into questions on this issue, though it may be the Panel wishes to ask some questions at some point. But if you have some information you wish to share with the Panel at this point, please do so.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: We wanted to raise the issue of the support works for the summer.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me. I realize you are tall and the microphone is not tall at the moment, but if you could raise the microphone a little and speak a little closer it will help the recording.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Is this okay?

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, sounds fine. Thank you.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: We had understood that there were a number of issues from some of the previous hearings or some of the previous scoping sessions that dealt with the status of the support works for the summer. And we had understood that there were a number of issues and a number of concerns raised by other groups with respect to our undertaking these works this summer. And we wanted to inform the Panel that these are works that in the normal course of events, in the normal course of a mining exploration activity, occur on a regular basis. And in other jurisdictions in Canada these things happen quite regularly.

The company has committed several million dollars over the next several years to undertake and continue with these exploration works, and it is the type of activity and the type of work that is necessary for us to better delineate the actual size of the ore body.

In addition, the creation of the summer support works will also improve the infrastructure and improve the safety of the operation in general. We are now operating, of course, in accordance with all statutory limitations and all statutory duties with respect to the minimum standards and with respect for standards for safety. But we feel that the support works would provide an additional opportunity to allow us to increase some of our safety mechanisms, and Bill may speak to that a little bit later.

We are undertaking these mineral exploration works in accordance with our mineral licenses which have been granted under the Mineral Act of the Province of Newfoundland.

In our Project Description itself we noted that the exploration work is an ongoing activity. On April 22nd we filed a registration to construct improvements to our existing facilities as an undertaking, and we filed that under the Newfoundland Environmental Assessment Act. We note that none of the works described there are indeed permanent and could not be used for the mine/mill project itself. We also note that these works can be fully remediated if at the end of the process the mine/mill is not granted the necessary permits by the provincial government.

It is our view that the Panel's scope of review does not include the proposed exploration improvements. The improvements contemplated by the exploration support works do not require any federal permits and they do not have any federal triggers which would be necessary under CEAA.

Therefore the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would not apply as the exploration works fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Province of Newfoundland. As such, under CEAA the Minister of Environment and the Panel, as a delegate of the Minister, has no statutory authority to conduct an exploration assessment of the improvements. Indeed we re-emphasize that the construction of the exploration improvements fall exclusively within an area of provincial jurisdiction.

We note that the Panel's scope of review is defined in the description of the undertaking within the Project Description. And the description of the undertaking does not cover the exploration improvements as the improvements have been designed and engineered for the purpose of exploration and not for the purpose of a mining and milling operation. We specifically stated in the Project Description that VBNC, the proponent, will continue with its ongoing exploration activities at the site.

Finally, we do not believe that the Panel has the authority to unilaterally amend the description of the undertaking pursuant to CEAA or the terms of the MOU.

Thank you. I do not know if there are any questions which arise from that.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Sheppard. I think what I will suggest is that if you are -- thank you for your offer to answer questions. I suspect the Panel may wish to begin with questions to Mr. Napier and perhaps Mr. LeDrew on the main presentation that was given. And there may be questions for you later if you would be willing answer them.

No, I am sorry. Charlie would like to ask a few questions now.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Sure.

MR. CHARLES PELLEY: I have a couple of questions I guess. Number one, is the concept that the advanced exploration was registered previously or submitted previously, I believe in 1996.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: That's right.

MR. CHARLES PELLEY: And that it was withdrawn at the latter part of 1996 as part of the facilitation of reaching a Memorandum of Understanding. Is that ---

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: I wouldn't necessarily characterize it in those terms. We withdrew the support exploration work in 1996 for a number of reasons. There was no direct relationship between withdrawing that and the creation of any Memorandum of Understanding.

MR. CHARLES PELLEY: Well, I guess that is my question. If you would clarify under what circumstances that was done?

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: That was a decision made internally within the organization to do that and it was not related to any agreement or any understanding we had with respect to the creation of an MOU.

MR. CHARLES PELLEY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. SAM METCALFE: Yes, in relation to the advanced exploration and the infrastructure, you stated that the Panel had no jurisdiction because it just falls under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act ---

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: That's correct.

MR. SAM METCALFE: --- and not under CEAA. Are you saying that you are following the letter of the law to put up infrastructure without consideration to the native organizations and other people that use the land?

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: We believe that clearly the types of works that we have outlined in the exploration support work are works that fall purely within the purview of the Newfoundland Environmental Assessment Act. And I would suggest to you that the people who administer the Newfoundland Environmental Assessment Act have a host of criteria that they have to go through when they make their particular assessments.

So when we file under the Newfoundland Act, we do it, as we have said earlier, in full compliance with the law and in full compliance with the terms and the conditions and the statutory obligations of the Newfoundland Act.

MR. SAM METCALFE: What about the interests of the people who use the land there?

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Certainly under the Newfoundland Act I gather there is a 30 day -- there is a 30 day period for public comment. Any comment that any group, Aboriginal or otherwise, wishes to make with respect to these support works can clearly be made within this 30 day period.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: I would like to ask a question of clarification and you may not be the person, Mr. Sheppard, to give it. If there is somebody else within VBNC who can do so, I really would like it.

I did not trust my memory, I usually don't, and I am referring back to my notes of the 28th of April at the session in St. John's. And at that time Mr. LeDrew and Mr. Ferguson were the two who were sitting before us and presenting. And I have written down and I think I asked the question to get it clear that the January '96 registration eventually was withdrawn at a request by the Newfoundland government because of the fact that it might stand in the way of getting the Memorandum of Understanding and the company complied.

Now, your answer to Dr. Pelley is the opposite of that, and I need to have clarification because I have heard two separate answers.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: The company when it made its consideration with respect to withdrawing the 1996 program did so on its own contemplation. It did so under its guise and under its own authority. Whether or not there were collateral discussions that occurred between other groups and the company with respect to withdrawing that are really beyond the issue as to what that has to do with these works this summer.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: I think it is important to the issue for me that if the company complied with a government request because the project or the registration might cause problems with the MOU before it was in place, then I think one of the things we have to look at as a Panel is what does the registration do now that the MOU is in place. I mean what was the relationship. So from that perspective I think it is important information for me to know whether or not what was said on April 28th was accurate information.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Right.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: I do not think I have made a mistake in my notes.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: I think the point we need to clarify is this. The Panel itself, this Panel as constituted has no statutory authority to consider these issues. This Panel has no authority to state or to incorporate what we have provided for in the summer exploration works as part of the Project Description. So the question, with the greatest respect, is not a fair question because of the status of the Panel under CEAA.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Well, if I can make one more point.

One of the things that we do have to deal with as a Panel is the Project Description that is referred to in the Memorandum of Understanding and that is the Project Description that came from VBNC.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: That's correct.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Within that Project Description there are calls for an airstrip, a road and a dock that are in the same place as the airstrip, road and dock -- we went through this in the meeting in St. John's -- as that which is described in the summer works project. So to that degree it is within the concern of the Panel to figure out if the Project Description that we are dealing with as a Panel has been changed, because within the MOU we are asked to make decisions around any information that comes to us during the process which might indicate a change in the Project Description.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Let me make two points. The first is a very clear one. If you look at the Project description that we have submitted to the government, it is absolutely clear and pointed out within that Project description that exploration support works are not covered as part of the Project Description. So we have said that and we have said that very clearly.

The second point relates to what we have talked about in the Project Description as a road, as an airstrip and as a dock versus the nature of those facilities as we have described them in the exploration support works. They are, quite frankly, fundamentally different creatures. The road, the dock and the airstrip that we have described in the support exploration works are truly that. They are temporary support exploration work facilities designed to do nothing more than support an exploration program.

The undertakings that we have described in the Project Description admittedly is something far significant and far different than that. They are indeed permanent facilities designed for the construction and the operation of a mine/mill facility. And again, we make the point that the types of activities and the types of construction activities we have outlined in the support exploration works are purely within the purview of the Province of Newfoundland and not within the purview of the Panel.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, it is not for us to consider the legalities of this I suppose. But in terms of the spirit of the MOU, as I understand it, the objective is that the project and its works will be reviewed by this Panel in a way, because there are other parties -- the LIA and the Innu Nation are part of this agreement -- that I think it is fair to say would make sense to those parties.

Now, I think I understand your explanation. I am trying to put myself in the position of somebody in one of the communities that we have been to who would understand the distinction that you have just drawn with respect, not to the nature of the facilities as such, but to their impact on the environment which is what this review is all about.

In other words, perhaps you could explain to us the ways in which the facilities that you are seeking, that you have registered under this separate application. You have described to us how they are different in terms of their intended purpose. What you have not described to us, I think, is how they impact the environment in a fundamentally different way than the final installations would. And that is the problem we are having here and I think it is probably the problem the people in the communities would have.

So perhaps you could explain that not only to the Panel but perhaps for the benefit of people who are here from those communities and would like to understand what you are telling us?

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: We have -- I made the point earlier that the works that we have proposed as summer exploration works are clearly captured by the Province of Newfoundland in these issues of constitutional jurisdiction, and you know, we talk about the MOU. And frankly we take the position that the Panel and this process is governed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

But to address your point specifically, under the Newfoundland Environmental Assessment Act there is very clearly an elaborate and reasonable process outlined within that jurisdiction to assess any type of work, be it exploration for the purposes of a mine/mill or any other type of work, be it work for the construction of an apartment building that has an impact or that has environmental impacts or environmental affects.

We have done the lawful thing under the Newfoundland Act and registered the support exploration works. As we said, there is a period of review, a 30 day period of review for any interested party to make comments on that particular registration. And then the Minister has really three options at that point to either allow the registration to proceed without an assessment,to order an environmental preview report or in fact order a full EIS.

And we clearly take the position that if anyone has comments on the support exploration work this summer, the appropriate forum for making those comments is within the purview and within the context of the registration we have made under the Newfoundland Act.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, with respect, sir, you have repeated an earlier assertion. You have not answered my question and perhaps I am asking the wrong person.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Well, sorry. Could you restate your question? Maybe I have misunderstood it.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, my question was, from the point of view, not of the legality that you have just explained or of the function of the installations that you have proposed, but in terms of their environmental impact, okay. You asserted earlier that these installations were fundamentally different from those described in the Project Description and I think the reason you gave for that was that their function was radically different.

What I am trying to understand is the way in which their environmental impact would be different. In other words, you build an airstrip, you build a road, you build a dock and you are telling us that -- or at least I think the implication is coming through that because their intended purpose is different, their environmental impact will be different.

I guess what I am suggesting is that some of the parties to this MOU and certainly in some of the communities that we have visited I think would be very curious to hear an explanation of that in a way that would be understandable to them.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: I will defer that to my colleague, Mr. Napier.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Madam Chair, I have made an arrangement with my colleague, Mr. Sheppard. I won't answer legal questions if he doesn't answer environmental questions. So I will ask Bevin if he could respond to that question.

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: I think just briefly, I think there is a very important distinction to be made here between the features described in the project that was registered in September and the features described in the document submitted to the provincial department of Environment and Labour recently. It is very much one of scale. And when I made the presentation in St. John's, I endeavoured to illustrate that.

The dock that we are talking about is essentially a wood crib structure adequate for offloading of supplies for the exploration operation. It is orders of magnitude smaller than the huge facility that will be required for large concentrate carrying vessels.

The road itself, I think I showed the cross section difference between the road that we are looking at which would be adequate to transport materials from Edwards Cove south to the area of the Ovoid. That road would essentially be made of fill material rather than cut and fill, and by so doing there would be minimum disruption to the surface cover and would facilitate the restoration and rehabilitation of that facility.

The airstrip is located in the area that we expect we will put the permanent airstrip. It will use a course fill material such that there be no alteration to the drainage pattern in the area of land surrounding it. The strip has been located so it doesn't interfere with any surface water drainages and its dimensions are such that it is adequate for support of exploration.

One of the reasons, and I will repeat this, one of the reasons that we have placed these features where we have is that it makes -- first of all, it makes good sense. If you are going to put a road from Edwards Cove to the Ovoid area, it will follow the eastern side of that valley and it makes sense in terms of long term planning to place that within, generally within the right-of-way of any road that would be associated with the permanent occupation. The scale of this is greatly different.

We have submitted along with the registration, a rehabilitation plan and again we talked about that in St. John's. We would see the ability to fully restore the area, remove the surface features and carry out a revegetation program.

So the important differences here is the scale of this activity. It is of a scale that would support exploration. It has been planned such that it is justified and is required for exploration. It does not represent an irrevocable commitment to the project and there is a restoration plan in place for it. And of course, the environmental protection plan which we have at site today would be modified to provide for all the appropriate protection measures during the construction and then the future operation of those facilities.

MR. CHARLES PELLEY: I guess I am changing the subject and maybe I shouldn't yet, but I thought that it would be a good time to get a legal opinion while you are still paying.

I am bringing this back I guess to your presentation, not to your verbal presentation, but to some of the presentation that came here in a written form.

We find ourselves appointed under an MOU that was negotiated between four parties and I suppose one could make the statement that the most stringent environmental legislation as part of that MOU is the CEAA legislation, not to be judgmental on that. And yet in that MOU there are definitions which go beyond CEAA. And I guess I am asking for your opinion as to what are the legalities of a definition that has been negotiated beyond existing legislation?

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: I don't know if I can give you an opinion. I can give you the company's view.

We expressed that I believe very clearly in our letter of December 23rd as it related to the draft MOU and the comments that we contained therein still stand from the company's perspective. That was a rather, as you may recall, lengthy document and we, despite the MOU and in light of the MOU, have still participated in the process but still reserving any and all legal rights that we may have as a result of providing our comments on the 23rd of December.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe Sam wishes to return to the question of the infrastructure.

MR. SAM METCALFE: Following or further to that letter that you mentioned, December 23rd, I think I better -- okay, the Panel does not have the authority under CEAA to consider the relationship between land claims negotiations and the development of the project is your claim. But in section 5.1.2 of the Draft Guidelines part of it states that:

"...the Panel may consider the relationship between the project and land claim negotiations and how proceeding with the Project in advance of a land claims settlements might adversely affect Aboriginal interests."

Now, granted that you state that the VBNC has no information related to the status of land claims, and that you have no means to acquire such information and you want the guidelines revised. By stating that, are you or can you tell me are you stating -- because the LIA has said that no land claims, no mine. I think you are quite aware of that. Everybody is aware of that.

Are you stating then that whether or not there is land claims you will go ahead with your project?

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: We are not going to comment upon that particular issue. We can only reiterate what we have said with respect to our position in our letter of December 23rd. Our concern is that the process is a true environmental process and not something other than that. It is a process that allows us to undertake a predictable and a process that is in compliance with statutory standards. The comments that we make, my friend has made with respect to land claims, I think are fair and I think they are legitimate concerns from the proponent's perspective.

MR. SAM METCALFE: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone have any more questions for Mr. Sheppard from the Panel?

Thank you very much.

MR. MARK SHEPPARD: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Returning to Mr. Napier's presentation, are there some questions for Mr. Napier or for Mr. LeDrew?

MR. CHARLES PELLEY: You have described176 meetings with the people in the communities, and I am not about to lay blame because we have shown up in communities and people have not understood the reason for us being there either.

And I guess my question is your comments now, and we have heard certainly Mr. LeDrew addressing this as we have gone around to the communities, but your comments about how we best get the EIS and the important information to the communities during the EIS review process so that when we go back to those communities we don't find ourselves in that position, could you offer your suggestions, comments or some thoughts?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Well, I guess the first one is access. If we can get into the communities with the consent of the LIA and Innu Nation, that would be helpful. To date we haven't been able to do that with the effort and diligence and exuberance we have with this exciting project.

How can we get the EIS reviewed? I think there are a couple of key points. One thing about an Environmental Impact Statement it can be a rather intimidating document. It is difficult to write and sometimes difficult to read and understand. We are looking at a way of getting certain sections, particular sections of relevance to the communities such as the impact on shipping transcribed completely in Innu-eimun and Inuktitut.

We also are considering with discussions with LIA and Innu Nation the preparation of a video. So for each of the documents there would be an individual essentially doing what we have seen here at the session, giving a 15 to 30 minute discussion on the summary of the salient points of that section of the document so someone wouldn't have to read all the fisheries, marine, sediment data and also the effects. Those are some of the thoughts we have for putting the information out.

We have also funded the Ok. Society and investigated putting -- we're thinking of a periodic or a scheduled time of the day or the week when the VBNC news hour would be on to give descriptions of the project. These are some of the thoughts we have and I think Bevin has a few more ideas.

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: I think one of the concerns that we have been dealing with is the comments that we have been hearing about the amount of consultation that has been carried out and then people's concern that they don't have enough information. We were, quite frankly, disappointed to hear that because we thought we had done a very diligent job and a very regular job. In fact, I can reflect on a couple of occasions where I was told, "What are you doing, you know, back here again? Don't you have anything new to tell us?" So it can be a little bit frustrating.

I suspect there is two ingredients that may have led to some of this. First of all, I think through nobody's fault we registered this project last September. At that time there were negotiations under way to reach an agreement on an MOU and that really didn't get concluded until the end of January. So there was quite a gap in time between when a project was registered and when the Panel got formed.

And as you know, well, the project registration has been out there for some time. A description of the project really wasn't part of what the Panel has been doing at these sessions, and I think that may have in some ways contributed to some of the difficulty that people had in understanding what the business was that was before the Panel.

I think as well one of the things that in some ways may have been working against us is the determination that we should take an informal kitchen table approach to consultation. We had been told by some of the intervenors appearing before the Panel that there hadn't been any "formal" meetings and so on. And that is unfortunate because there had been a lot of "informal" meetings, and it had always been our understanding that that was a better way to go with things.

So I think some of those comments that we have been hearing, certainly we have to take them into account. And one of the things that we will be focusing on between now and when our EIS is submitted is the distribution of information about the Project Description, the completion of our video, its circulation and community visits associated with that so that people do have a good understanding of the Project Description as a first step in providing them as good an understanding as we are able to about the full Environmental Impact Statement.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, I think we all appreciate that the communication of the EIS will be an ongoing process and that from the date that it is released there will be probably continuing discussions and explanations of what it is and what it means and so on. But one of the problems we have to wrestle with, I guess, is what actually constitutes an EIS on the date of its release. And we have had some suggestions that it might constitute some other things other than simply a large, technical document nicely bound and in technical language.

And I mean obviously that creates some issues to be dealt with. Because if there are going to be other products, it presumes that somebody has got to know what the EIS says and that they have to be prepared at the same time and so on and so forth.

But I wonder if you could share with us, if you have any such thoughts, as to what your views on what the product would be that would constitute the release of an EIS for the purpose of the clock starting to tick with respect to its review?

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: The formal document will be just that. It will be a written, thick document intended to comply with the guidelines. In advance of and following the submission of that document we will be taking a number of measures to make it known and available. There will be translations of sections of it. There will be this series of videotapes. And we have in fact started formally to seek advice from communities and the different organizations that come before the Panel to ask them how best to communicate the document itself.

But in terms of what will be tabled with the Panel, right now it is our intention that it will be a written, bound document.

MR. PETER USHER: And then all the other products would come afterwards?

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: Some before, some afterwards.

MR. PETER USHER: Some before. I guess the concern obviously is that for everybody to have an equal shot at reviewing and assessing the document, the document has to be in a form that is presumably understandable and accessible to them in order that they can do that. And as I say, we are all wrestling with that problem as to, you know, what that format might be. But certainly the suggestion is there that it might be something more than simply the formal technical document.

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: I think one of the key reasons that we are looking at this carefully and I think in the Draft Guidelines there was reference to a CD ROM and I know as much about computers as I do about law, so bear with me on this one.

I think part of what we are looking at is we had to have -- what communications we use have to be things that people in the communities are comfortable with and have the tools to deal with. One of the things that we do have, we have a radio network and we have -- on each community we do have a cable TV system. So my inclination is to rely more on something like a videotape type of format, maybe radio communication and so on.

We have noted for example that we have also used things like 1-888 number for interaction from people. That is part of the reason that we are going formally now and asking people about how they would like to see this work. Some of these things like a CD ROM sound pretty good and they probably will help some groups and so on. But I think in terms of getting a good communication of what we are doing, we have got to make sure that we are doing things that are, you know, that the community is prepared to receive and utilize and has systems and capabilities in place.

MR. PETER USHER: You mentioned, I think, at a previous session, possibly in Makkovik or Rigolet, something to the effect that you were in fact consulting the community councils, I think, about the format in which these things should appear. Are you hearing anything different through those consultations than we have all heard at the public sessions?

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: We haven't really had a chance to assess the response to that. It is a recent initiative. But we will be following up when we have had that opportunity. For example, today we mentioned it to Mayor Baikie, but, you know, they will have to consider it. We will probably want to sit down and talk to each of these community groups about that.

MR. SAM METCALFE: I am confused here. So it may be just personal confusion. I would like to have it clarified regardless.

You spoke a great deal in your presentation on Aboriginal knowledge, that you have made substantial efforts to gather available information relative to Aboriginal knowledge and also funding the publication of Them Days and through all kinds of other things. I mean there was a fair -- a good presentation on what you are doing along those lines.

And on page 16 of your specific comments, 3.2, in brackets you have, because we have it written as such:

"Aboriginal and Settler people who have traditionally used the area must be consulted."

Is what the Panel is putting into the guidelines of the EIS. And the question you ask is:

"How does VBNC know if its consultation with these groups is adequate?"

But didn't you just state to us that this is adequate and you are saying that in the guidelines it is not? I am just confused here.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: I think the question maybe the wrong term is "rhetorical." I think what we were trying to say is that the -- stating that the groups must be consulted, how can we do this is the question. And what we have done in the first part of the section is describe what we have done. And we hope what we have done is sufficient and adequate enough to be reflected in the guidelines that you are considering.

So the purpose of what we tried to do is state that since 1995 we developed a host or array of contracts exceeding over $3 million with Aboriginal groups attempting to conduct Aboriginal knowledge and IBA negotiations. And now that we are on the threshold of preparing an EIS what we have done is sufficient to be considered by this Panel so we can proceed with that document.

And I think what the question here is asking is in this statement that you have, "must be consulted," we provided for you in our document the answer to that question.

MR. SAM METCALFE: Okay. Thanks.

MR. PETER USHER: I wonder if I could just follow up on that a bit because I took that section actually to mean perhaps something a little different and if I am wrong, tell me. And that is when you ask in a couple of places there that you would like -- you say it is non-prescriptive. Are you asking us to be sufficiently clear about what the tests of adequacy are so that everybody could come to the same conclusion based on what is in the guidelines?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: I think what we are looking for is the -- in our submission we describe the work we have done to date to fulfil the guidelines or the anticipated guidelines when we were conducting the work. And what we have done is stated that there could be a matter of interpretation. And rather than a deficiency being identified some time later down the road, that the guidelines and our explanation of what is being done are consistent.

MR. PETER USHER: I think we are on the same wavelength then.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to ask -- I have got three questions and I will hop all over the place I am afraid in your document.

My first question relates to something you have written on the bottom of page 2. And in this whole section the argument is being made that, and it has already been alluded to, that the definitions that are in the MOU which provides the Panel with its mandate are broader than those in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. And I guess there is a challenge being put forward here that in fact the broader definitions may not in a legal sense hold water and you are recommending to the Panel that we should, in a sense, shrink our guidelines a little so that they match more closely definitions that are in the Act.

And I am not sure that I particularly want to get into that at this point. I think that is something that we will certainly want to consider and perhaps we will be getting some advice of our own on that matter. But I am interested in what has been written at the bottom of the page here with respect to mitigation, where again you are saying that the definition of mitigation that we have been working with in our Memorandum of Understanding is broader, goes further, and then you finish up by saying -- you say that such an environmental assessment process is contrary to Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. And then you say:

"Further, it could result in the environmental assessment incorporating many of the areas normally contemplated in the negotiation of impact and benefits agreements with aboriginal groups."

And I think you know from some of the questions that we have asked in previous sessions that this is something that is kind of puzzling us, the relationship, and not only us. Even outside this process there has been discussion and debate about the relationship of the environmental assessment process to an Impact Benefit Agreement negotiation process, which is, of course, a bilateral process and we are not privy to what is going on there nor should we be necessarily.

But as a Panel I believe we feel that it is our duty to look at the -- through a very open and consultative process to look at the full range of impacts and the full range of mitigative options. And I just want some clarification as whether there is some suggestion here that the company is saying that Impact Benefit Agreements sort of carve out a certain area and that the environmental assessment process should just tread around the outside of that and just pick up what is not there?

I mean even if that were indeed an appropriate approach, it is kind of problematic for us since we do not know what is being negotiated in the IBAs. So could you -- am I misinterpreting what is being said here because I think there are things that are probably being talked about in the IBAs that I am sure we are going to want to raise questions about and hear from the public about and maybe make recommendations in our Panel report.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: In the definition of mitigation I would contend that we would be looking for mitigation in the traditional sense of an effect that may be caused upon the environment, whether that effect be biophysical or socio-economic and that effect can be mitigated.

With the expansion of the definition of mitigation to compensation and restitution, it goes beyond building a line treatment plant or assisting couples in working at the site. And I think our point that we were trying to make in this statement is that the economic mitigations, economic considerations for mitigation are being negotiated in the IBA.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that in fact you feel we should only look at the traditional, if indeed that is the traditional definition of mitigation, which is one that does not include compensation. So that in other words, if an impact is identified and there appears to be no "traditional" mitigative response to that that you would not wish us to contemplate compensation as a response and therefore that impact must of necessity show up, if you like, an untouched residual impact?

Are you really suggesting that mitigation to be looked at by the Panel should not -- if there is not -- I mean I think everyone would agree the first one is trying to do is always to avoid or prevent the impact from occurring and that is the top of the hierarchy, the response is. But sometimes impacts appear to be unavoidable and then you do talk about compensation.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: I guess compensation to whom and it may be difficult in the Draft Guidelines to itemize a compensation regime. And I guess our position is that would be better left for something like in the IBA.

So I would say yes, that our identification or our speculation with respect to the scope of mitigation should be confined to precedent setting or traditional setting EIS's and environmental assessments, rather than going into a negotiated definition.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, yes, clearly the Panel would not be involved in negotiating those things or even making -- all right. Let's leave that one.

MR. PETER USHER: I wonder if I could just follow up on that. I think I understand some of your concerns in that regard, but at the same time I would just like to clarify something.

You are not suggesting, are you, that there should be certain possible impacts of this project that this Panel should not look at and therefore impacts that might be best left unremedied? Because after all we don't know what is in the IBAs. I mean we don't want to preempt and so on and we cannot intrude on the process.

But it seems to us when I think of the range of considerations that people have put before us in the scoping hearing and other documents and so on, that there is a very wide range of concerns here. And in fairness to the people who have put forward these concerns, and indeed all four parties to the MOU, surely we have to address them in some way and we have to ask you to address them.

I mean it will be for the review process to judge how effectively in effect those remedies are. I do not think the guidelines are prescriptive in that regard, but they are trying to encompass the full range of possible impacts. Are you suggesting that somehow we should not do that?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: I am suggesting that the range of mitigation measures can be or there can be a range of mitigation measures. And I would suspect that compensation to groups is one that should be -- that we should proceed with very cautiously in this process.

MR. PETER USHER: Oh, well, then perhaps that is -- I mean, you know, you can put forward that view in the EIS I suppose and we can all get to discuss it.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: We certainly will.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to ask my second question and perhaps it will not turn out to be so extensive. But it is about Aboriginal knowledge and also about -- well, it is somewhere in one of the pages towards the end you do make a reference to the fact you will be -- the Draft Guidelines made reference to an ecosystem approach to environmental assessment. And you have acknowledged that and said that you are in fact -- that is part of your approach and you are incorporating it somewhere there.

And I am just wondering, I am still quite confused from what you said about the integration of Aboriginal knowledge. I am not confused. I have got it very clearly that you are saying your proposal is to incorporate where you can and were you cannot that will have to come in from a different way and a different route, and I think that is quite consistent with what we have said so far in the Draft Guidelines.

But I am curious to know whether you anticipate through any of the negotiations, the arrangements you have already made that whether you are going to be able to incorporate in your ecosystem approach any significant Aboriginal knowledge component in terms of indicators of ecosystem health and functioning or whatever that would be, especially as we understand that looking at the world, looking at the natural and human worlds in an integrated and holistic way is certainly consistent with traditional ecological knowledge and indeed Aboriginal world views.

So do you anticipate that you are going to be able to that? Is that part of any of these arrangements you have made?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: The arrangements we have made thus far and I think the point of the written submission more than the oral submission because of time indicates that our ability to obtain such information has been limited. Therefore, other than published literature it is going to be very difficult for us to incorporate Aboriginal knowledge in the ecosystem approach as a result of direct discussions and the collection of primary Aboriginal knowledge and primary "TEK" from the groups because those discussions have not occurred as quickly and as comprehensively as we would have liked.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Just one follow-up question to that. Are you committed though to continue the process of having discussions to see if there are ways to get that information?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Yes, we have meetings and exchange of correspondence essentially as we speak.

MS LORRAINE MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. PETER USHER: I guess a couple of approaches have been put to us as to how the question might be dealt with and I appreciate, you know, what you have told us in terms of the difficulties that you are having. One of them is that perhaps it would be best for such knowledge -- and I think I would like to come back to some definitional questions here in a minute, but let's start with this -- that such knowledge might be best brought to bear not necessarily in the EIS itself but in the review of the EIS.

And I wondered first of all what you might think of that particular approach and second of all, whether any of the studies that you funded have been with that in mind or if they are not, then how would we sort of move on to those stages? Because presumably there are some costs in people doing that and presumably that would come some time in the review process as opposed to incorporating it in the EIS.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: It would be preferable for the EIS as much as it can to be an encompassing document so that the baseline data collected is valid and credible. So it is valid and credible and then the impact predictions themselves have a greater degree of certain.

The problem with baseline information coming at the Panel stage, it is a bit unfair for the proponent if there is going to be a shift in that baseline data information because if groups or individuals or government agencies are holding that close to their chest and they bring it forward at the Panel hearings, we cannot be expected to make predictions if we don't have the information.

Our assessment is that the information we have now is sufficient and robust enough that the additional information brought forward during the hearings would not substantially alter the impact predictions we have made, and of course, binding mitigations that we propose. So although that is a valid approach and a prudent approach that you discussed in your first question is one that we tread very cautiously with.

With respect to your second question, there is a number of -- well, as you know, the environmental assessment process is a planning process. And after plans come actual activity. And our intent, as I indicated in the presentation, is to continue the collection of Aboriginal knowledge and discussions with Aboriginal peoples throughout the life of this operation.

And I don't know whether another facility-- I don't think a mine has that -- I don't even know whether another facility, proposed facility has made that commitment. And that is what we are going to try to achieve. That can be achieved for working arrangements which we hope can be described in the EIS. If not, they will be brought forward, we hope, during the hearing process.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, just with respect to the EIS for the moment -- I don't know whether this is a reasonable question to ask because I think it is a difficult one for all of us. But do you have kind of a working definition for the purposes of the EIS what either Aboriginal knowledge or traditional ecological knowledge actually is and how you would -- in other words, what is the range of things you are looking at here?

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: Perhaps I could talk a little bit about how we see incorporation into the EIS of this type of knowledge. I think in part this reflects the understanding that we had from the Innu Nation as to how they regard Aboriginal knowledge. They do not see it as a separate category and therefore we do not see a chapter of our EIS just labelled "TEK."

We would see in terms of a number of subject areas as we assess by issue each of the concerns that have been brought forward, that in bringing forward the information that is available, we will bring forward original data collected at site. Certainly the available literature and other information provided by government agencies plus the available Aboriginal knowledge and we would incorporate that information such that the Aboriginal knowledge to the extent it is available is given full consideration in terms of understanding the environment and making predictions about effects and identifying appropriate mitigations.

I do not know if that addresses the definitional question, but that is really the approach in terms of how we would deal with this information.

MR. PETER USHER: Well, it doesn't quite. I appreciate what you are telling us about how you would integrate. And the reason I ask it or one of the reasons I ask it is this I think. And that is you have given us an interesting run-down -- maybe I should let you consult your advisors for a minute here before I proceed with the question.

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: It is a good thing I am deaf.

MR. PETER USHER: You have given us I think at least from your perspective a pretty thorough run-down of the work that you have supported and we have only had a limited time to observe but. But let me put a question to you that may be concerning you as much as perhaps it does us and that is, with respect to socio-economic baseline data.

In other words, what the situation actually is and therefore what the impacts of the project might be, regardless of whatever arrangements you may have come to with either the LIA or the Innu Nation or anybody else about data collection that might impinge on that area to the mutual satisfaction of the two contracting parties. There are, nonetheless, some general standards that would be applied in the review of socio-economic baseline.

And I am wondering whether in your mind you are fully satisfied that the socio-economic research that you have done to date or entered into contractual relations with anybody else to do will meet those standards or whether there is any possible misunderstanding in respect of what Aboriginal knowledge is all about, that perhaps there is a danger that that might not happen. Is that of concern and what is your approach to that?

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: I think first of all there is one concern that we have and that is the absence of some policy guidance from government on the issue of traditional knowledge and how it can be incorporated into impact assessment. That is something that we, as a proponent, cannot address and we will, of course, be putting forward methodologies but it will be subject to challenge. So there isn't, if you will, a commonly agreed or accepted standard that we can work against.

I think the other comment that I would make is that we have been trying our best in terms of working with competent professionals in the field and working with people in the communities in terms of collecting information in a fashion which is appropriate to the communities, but collecting that data in a rigorous fashion so that it is acceptable.

In some areas we have relatively recent data that in fact has gone through the test of an impact assessment or the equivalent of an impact assessment, so we are relatively comfortable. In other areas I think we have a potential difficulty in terms of the aging or the dating of the information that is available and certainly that is what we are trying to address.

MR. PETER USHER: Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: You may remember some time ago I said that I had three questions and got through two of them. The first bit of bad news is I am coming back to my third question. The second bit of bad news is I am going back to that old subject of the advanced exploration infrastructure, but the piece of good news is that in the interim I think I have managed to make my question shorter. And it is this.

Are you planning to make a deliberate effort to communicate to the public in the area, the areas that we have been visiting and we will have to visit again? Are you planning to communicate about what you are proposing to do and the reasons for doing this and all the reasons that you have given to the Panel why you feel you have to do it? Why you feel it in fact doe snot harm the integrity of the environmental assessment process and does not represent a kind of irrevocable step in the development? That is the question.

And the rationale is, which I think I should just give the background because I think this is something the Panel -- we are really having to -- we will have to wrestle with this and we will have to wrestle with this whether or not -- quite separate from this whole legal argument that has been put forward to us and which is not something that, obviously, we are going to be deciding. That will be decided elsewhere.

But what we have to do, I mean we have got a job to do and our job is set out in the MOU and our job is to carry out a single -- well, I guess we do not have to worry about that, that bit is done -- but an efficient and effective process and you are very interested in it being an effective and efficient process as well. And I guess the thing that we are having to ask ourselves is are we going to have some problems with carrying out an efficient and effective process if people feel that the whole question of developing that infrastructure is an indication that our process has somehow lost meaning.

Because we have already heard this. This has been said to us already. We hear, "Well, we know the project is going to go ahead." But anyway, I am not endorsing that statement. I am just saying that is what we hear.

So I assume this is something that really concerns you because we may find it difficult to carry out our process efficiently, go to communities, meet with people, get the kind of feedback we need if that is the perception that people have. So how are you going to address that and is that something that worries you as equally as it worries us?

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: The easy answer to how I am going to address that is I am going to ask Mr. Napier to respond. But I would point out that one of the things that we have found that is part of our challenge in terms of public consultation is having people understand just the level of activity that is going on at site right now, the reason for it and so on. And we get hit from both sides in terms of the numbers of employees and the working conditions at site now and people get it sometimes confused as to what is anticipated to come in the future.

We have, and I think I have mentioned this, we have had a large number of people come and visit the site and hopefully in that fashion give them an understanding of what we are doing. But you are correct in that the proposed '97 works program does add another complication to our communications effort. And I think Mr. Napier can give you a bit of a run-down of what we have done and what we are planning to do.

THE CHAIRPERSON: But specific to this particular thing.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: The good news, Madam Chair, is we did it. The bad news is I think everybody probably forgot about it. And last year when we did our open houses in August, July and August, the possibility and at that time the advanced infrastructure was still on the table and it was actually the reason or was part of the reason for the initial series of open houses we have had.

We have prior to submitting the plans to the government consulted with the LIA and the Innu Band Councils through the pre-implementation agreement was the economic arm of the Innu Nation. We haven't yet gone to communities and we have no objections to do that and if it facilitates the process and gives it better explanation of our project, it is something we will endeavour to do.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Questions on other topics?

MR. PETER USHER: I guess it was just a quick follow up, but you say you have addressed this with the Innu Nation, yet we had a presentation this afternoon that suggests you have not been terribly successful at getting their approval, I guess?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: No, we haven't been very successful with either the Innu Nation nor the LIA.

MR. PETER USHER: Just a question on your comment on the precautionary principle at the bottom of page 9. You have referred us to a document, which I believe I have in front of me, "The Minerals and Metals Policy of the Government of Canada Partnerships for Sustainable Development." Is that what you are referring to at the bottom of page 9?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Yes.

MR. PETER USHER: Okay. Well, the only -- when I look at that section there is only one paragraph that tells us about what the precautionary principle is beyond what it actually says in the real declaration. And in fact there has been a great deal of discussion in the professional community about how one might implement or not implement or different ways in which one might implement the precautionary principle and what it actually means.

So I am wondering is this really all the advice you would like to give us on the application of the principle or is there something more you would like to say?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: If the Panel is searching for other references, there is two other documents you may wish to consider in the application of the precautionary principle. The Whitehorse Mining Initiative Leadership Accord of October, 1994 does reference the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. And also references the use of information in science and environmental decision making.

I think our point that we tried to make to the Panel is that since the precautionary principle is a relatively new principle it does not enjoy statutory provisions such as sustainable development. That the definition has been worked out very carefully and can mean things to many different people. That the exact wording of that definition as prescribed under Rio should be employed for the assessment of this project.

MR. PETER USHER: Could you point out, is this the Leadership Council Accord that you are referring to, the Whitehorse Mining Initiative? Is that the document?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Yes, page 17. I have a fax here I could send you of this document. I have excerpts here. The title is "Use of Information in Science and Environmental Decision Making."

MR. PETER USHER: All right. So page 17. And the other document is?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Sorry. I made a mistake. That is the only document.

MR. PETER USHER: Okay.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: The other document was the NARCAN document.

MR. PETER USHER: One or two other small things with respect to your particular comments on the guidelines.

Under 4.2, this is on your page 17, you have suggested that you will organize the EIS in a manner which reflects your methodological approach. Does that mean that you are not too interested in any suggestions that we might have in that regard or how should we interpret that statement?

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: We are very interested in your suggestions for the organization of the document. What we propose is there is a number of ways that an environmental assessment could be crafted.

We have actually, as you would suspect, after two years of collecting environmental baseline data and collecting Aboriginal knowledge and socio-economic data that we have been cobbling together a document. What we are recommending is that if there is an alternative approach a table of concordance could be used to ensure that information can be readily accessible for those individuals who would like to look at a specific area.

For example, in the ecosystem approach that was mentioned previously, that could be handled through -- instead of having a section, it may be better that for each of the significant environmental value of the ecological components, for each vec the ecosystem approach that we discussed previously may be considered with each vec rather than in a section by itself. If that is the case then it could be -- we recommend that a Table of Concordance may be an appropriate means of cross-referencing information.

MR. PETER USHER: All right. Well, I think we would probably like the Table of Concordance in any event. I guess it is fair to say that we have given a good deal of thought as to how an EIS might be organized and presented in a way that would make it as easy as possible for the reader and hopefully for the writer and I hope our work will not be for nought.

MR. WILLIAM NAPIER: Your recommendations will be very well -- what will be provided in the guidelines will be adhered to.

MR. BEVIN LeDREW: I think there is one other factor that might be worth keeping in mind and that is that in putting guidelines together obviously what the Panel would be doing is trying to consider, as you say, the best way you can see an EIS being prepared such that it addresses the issues that are identified and is communicated in an effective fashion.

In my experience with putting these documents together, almost inevitably when you are finished putting that document together, there are differences between any guideline or instruction and therefore it has become fairly common practice to put, if you will, a Concordance Table that shows how the document complies with the guidelines or where it does not follow it, it gives one a road map of how to do that. And we always start out saying we will not have such a document, such a Table of Concordance, but almost always one ends up with something like that.

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that the Panel has finally finished its question and I would like to thank you both and other people who spoke very much for your presentation and for answering our questions, and thank the audience too for their patience.

I would just like to explain if people were feeling a little frustrated at the length of time we were taking here, we have been waiting for our opportunity to be able to discuss some of these issues for quite some time with VBNC and this has been very valuable to the Panel to have been able to ask these questions and get these responses and it is all very germane to the work that we have to do in finalizing the guidelines.

Before we go there are -- there may be, I am not sure, there were two people who wished to just speak very quickly, and I am very sorry, they were not registered but they would like to speak briefly about something that was said earlier and if you would like to take a couple of minutes. Andrea Webb and Zippie McLean. And then we will finish the session after that.

MS ANDREA WEBB: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I wanted to take this opportunity to say a few words on behalf of some Inuit women in this community because we don't belong to any group here and we don't have an Inuit women's group.

There is a large number of Inuit people living here and we don't get the opportunity to come up and speak to groups like yourself. And perhaps from other people, other women and concerns and I also have a couple of questions.

First of all, because we don't belong to any Inuit groups we don't get the opportunity to voice our opinions. So our concerns are there is a large number of unemployment. Even though some of us have diplomas for interpreting or other areas we find it really hard to find jobs in this community. So -- and also there are a lot of single parents, both men, women and elders who are looking after their grandchildren. And most of us live on welfare. And when you are on welfare, you have no other -- nowhere to turn because of unemployment.

And people are talking about health and environment. Health is just as hazardous to us when you are living on welfare. You have no food on the table. You have no money to clothe your children. You have no money, extra moneys for their school, school books or whatever else you have to pay for. And because the government of -- the provincial government is always saying they have no money for us. Even though we tried to start groups of our own, there is no other avenues.

And the question I had there was also no mention of unilingual people. We are also concerned about unilingual people, people who only speak the Inuktitut language in this community who are interested in acquiring employment for Voisey's Bay and other Inuit, young adults and adults who have been looking for years for employment. There are questions and I would like to voice them.

Would you consider training some of these people in this community who apply -- who would be applying for jobs for Voisey's Bay? Would training be available for them so that they could learn a trade with you for mining or cooking or other fields? Because there are a lot of women holding diplomas for interpreting and translating. Some of us are doing freelancing but that is not enough. We don't earn enough money.

So if you could think about hiring some local people. If you are starting opening an office here in this community, we would like some contact person or people to call around to the Inuit people and give them the opportunity to train them or maybe give some of them jobs. Because we are a forgotten group of people here. We know we are a very, very minority group. So minority we are invisible to all people, other peoples in this community and we have nowhere else to turn. So when an opportunity comes up like now, we would really like some input from you on what you can do to help us out.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you for speaking. We appreciate your questions. We are the Environmental Assessment Panel. We are not the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company and you have been asking some of your questions directly to the company. We will certainly take note of the points you have raised and the issues you have raised because we are preparing guidelines, which are a series of questions that go to the company.

And so what you have said we will look at it carefully to see if it is covered by what we have in the guidelines if we need to add something. And what I would -- the company is here. The company representatives are here and they have listened to your request and perhaps when the meeting is finished perhaps you could also have some direct conversation and they could give you a response to those questions that you asked. So thank you.

MS ANDREA WEBB: Okay. Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS ZIPPIE McLEAN: Hi. My name is Zippie McLean. I am going to speak in English.

I am from Nain, Labrador, but I live here now and I have been sitting here for a few hours and thinking about my parents and my grandparents and my children. I am a mother of four. And to the last presentation, I didn't understand a word they said and I'm really concerned about the environment. Like that man in the blue suit he doesn't have an opinion and I feel like as an Inuit person from Labrador we are being invaded.

And they talk about Newfoundland, but they never talk about Labrador. And when they say Newfoundland Act, I think the Newfoundland Act is good for Newfoundland, but not for Labrador. And that the Newfoundland government is neglecting us and they don't know anything about Labrador, especially the Aboriginal people. And you talk about Aboriginal knowledge and I don't think any mining company doesn't have any knowledge of the environment. They just want money. Money, money, money.

And I am really concerned about the caribou. We have the largest caribou herd in the world and I am really concerned about the hunting grounds and the fish. And I am really concerned about the women because you talked about land claims and if land claims don't go ahead, no mining. The guy couldn't even answer that because he already knows the answer.

I mean the animals can't come up here to this microphone and speak for themselves. So I'm really against mining because our caribou, that's our way of life. And the beauty of the land is our health. And I'm really frustrated because I feel like we're being invaded. And I'm really concerned about the environment. And all this might go ahead with Voisey's Bay or whatever.

In 20 years it won't be all this money. There will be poverty, more diseases, more pregnancies, more problems and ruined land, no caribou. The wildlife will not be healthy. It's nice to talk about it now because it's all money. People just want nice homes, nice cars, but they don't care about the environment. But I want to have a chance to come up here to this mike and say we have to look out for our animals and our fish because that is our food.

And the Newfoundland Act and the Newfoundland province doesn't have anything to do with Labrador. To them we are just resources. They want to come up here and take our mining, our trees, our fish, our cod because they hardly have anything left in Newfoundland. So I for one as an Inuit person from Labrador, I'm really concerned about the environment which we live in. And I'm saying this because I have four children. And thank you for your time.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We really appreciate the fact, we knew that you had a long wait before you had that opportunity to come to the mike, and we are sorry that you had to wait that time. There was some work that we had to do in speaking with the company and asking them questions. It is very important that we do hear from all people that we hear from. People who perhaps do not normally have that loud a voice, and we appreciate the fact that both of you have spoken now and we have heard what you said. Thank you.

I would like to thank everyone here for sticking out the end of this session which I am now going to bring to a close. And tomorrow we will be holding sessions in Sheshatshit, and thank you very much for being here tonight in Goose Bay.

--- Upon adjourning at 10:28 p.m.