EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 3, 1996

.0839

[Translation]

The Chairman: Good morning. Today we are studying Bill C-65, An Act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.

[English]

We have a number of witnesses. We welcome the witnesses who are in this room already. Those who are not, we will welcome later. I know they are already in the building.

From the Grand Council of Crees we have Ted Moses, Deborah Freedman and Geoffrey Quayle.

.0840

Ms Deborah Freedman (Legal Counsel, Grand Council of the Crees): Mr. Moses will be speaking on behalf of the Grand Council of the Crees.

The Chairman: Mr. Moses, we welcome you and invite you to proceed.

Mr. Ted Moses (Cree Ambassador, Grand Council of the Crees): Thank you,Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you and to give you our comments and recommendations with respect to the proposed legislation. I will try to be brief, if I can, although it is tempting to be able to present a submission with as much information as I possibly can. But given that I have a time constraint and that other witnesses need to appear, I will try to be as brief as I can.

The Grand Council of the Crees, or eeyou astchee, and the Cree Regional Authority represent the James Bay Cree. Our people, who number approximately 12,000, are the original and permanent inhabitants of the watersheds of James Bay and the Great Whale and nearby rivers in the southern Hudson Bay region.

The James Bay Cree nation includes: Whapmagoostui, Chisasibi, Wemindji, Eastmain, Waskaganish, Nemaska, Waswanipi, Mistissini and Oujé-Bougoumou. This territory, including the coasts, islands, waters and seabeds of Hudson Bay and James Bay, is our traditional land and is our home. We depend on this land for our subsistence. We continue to hunt, fish and trap as we have for thousands of years.

Hunting, fishing and trapping of wildlife species is at the heart of Cree society. A great number of Cree people depend on hunting, fishing and trapping for their subsistence.

In the early 1970s the Quebec government proposed the development of huge hydroelectric projects on Cree territory without our consent. We opposed this development and went to court to stop the destruction of our lands. As a result, the Crees, Inuit, Quebec and Canada in 1975 entered into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which has been described as the first so-called modern land claims agreement and has been given effect and declared valid by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act and An Act approving the Agreement concerning James Bay and Northern Quebec.

One of the fundamental undertakings made to the Cree by both Canada and Quebec in this agreement was that our use of eeyou astchee and our traditional way of life based on hunting, fishing and trapping would be forever protected. To this end, section 24 of the agreement provides for the establishment of the hunting, fishing and trapping coordinating committee, an expert body constituted under section 24.4 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Its main purpose is to review and manage the hunting, fishing and trapping regime established under section 24 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and section 15 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

The coordinating committee is made up of representatives from the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec, the James Bay Cree, the Inuit of Quebec and the Naskapi of Quebec.

Under the hunting, fishing and trapping regime the Cree have the exclusive right to harvest wildlife over territories known as category I and II lands and also have extensive hunting, fishing and trapping rights in the rest of the James Bay and southern Hudson Bay territory designated as category III lands. Harvesting includes the right of the Cree to hunt, fish and trap for personal and community subsistence purposes and for commercial purposes related to the fur trade and commercial fisheries. Apart from this treaty right, the Cree have an aboriginal right to hunt, trap and fish within Quebec as well as in certain portions of the Northwest Territories, Ontario and Labrador.

.0845

The rights of the Cree to harvest under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are rights entrenched under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, which recognizes and affirms the rights set out in such treaties as well as aboriginal rights. As such, these rights have priority over all inconsistent federal and provincial legislation.

The Cree people believe strongly in the merits of the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act and support federal legislation aimed at the protection of wildlife species at risk and the prevention of indigenous wildlife Canadian species from becoming extirpated or extinct as a consequence of human activities.

However, while we support the spirit and intent of the proposed legislation, it is important to resolve any conflicts or ambiguities with respect to the Cree right to harvest and other rights guaranteed under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement before Parliament adopts the legislation. The right to harvest is fundamental to aboriginal life. It's one of the most important inherent aboriginal rights. The Cree people recognize the pursuit of the optimum natural productivity of all living resources and the protection of ecological systems of the territory so as to protect endangered species and to ensure primarily the continuance of the traditional pursuits of aboriginal people.

To this end, the right of the Cree to harvest, as set out in section 24 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, is limited by the principles of conservation. We give you a particular reference to section 24.2.1, which spells out the principles of conservation.

Allow me to say that the term ``conservation'', as contemplated under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, is defined in section 24 of that agreement as being, ``to ensure primarily the continuance of the traditional pursuits of the native people''. As well, section 24.3.2 provides for ``the right to harvest species of wild fauna'' except certain species that may require complete protection.

Furthermore, section 24.5.1 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement specifically provides that:

...in categories I and II, matters relating primarily to the protection of wildlife resources, rather than harvesting activity and hunting and fishing by non-natives shall be solely the jurisdiction of the responsible Provincial or Federal Governments.

Yet, while legislation aimed at the protection of wildlife species is within the federal government's legislative capacity, we draw attention to section 24.5.2 of the agreement, which underlines the obligation of the federal government to consult with the coordinating committee in the specific context of wildlife protection measures.

We understand these provisions to ensure us a constitutionally protected right to be consulted on these matters relating to, for example, the designation of species at risk and the creation and implementation of recovery and management plans. Furthermore, it is our understanding that section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement guarantees the Cree people, via the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment, the right to be consulted with regard to proposed development activity in the territory.

In this regard, section 22.3.28 states that the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment:

...shall be consulted from time to time on major issues respecting the implementation of the regime of the environmental and social protection and land use measures and may advise responsible concerned governments on the implementation of the environmental and social protection and land use regimes.

I also refer to sections 22.5.13 and 22.5.14 of the same agreement, which delineate the requirement that proposed developments in the territory be subject to some form of assessment and review by various environmental and social impact committees on which the Cree participate.

Once again, we wish to stress that the Cree people support the spirit and intent of Bill C-65. Our point is that Parliament must ensure that any such legislation it adopts is compatible with the aboriginal and treaty rights of the James Bay Cree.

.0850

We therefore suggest seven integral amendments to the bill that will both strengthen the positive impact of the legislation and bring it on-line with the rights guaranteed under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I will go through the proposed amendments. I'll try to be as brief as I can.

First, we encourage the federal government to broaden the scope of the application of the legislation to all of Canada. As the legislation presently stands, its application is limited to only federal lands. However, the protection of species at risk against human activities is predominantly extraprovincial as well as international in its implications, and therefore a matter of concern to Canada as a whole. Accordingly, the subject matter of the legislation has attained a national importance and a degree of singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that distinguishes it from other matters of strictly provincial dimension.

Therefore, it is crucial that the federal government take a leadership role in protecting all transboundary species. This can be achieved by extending application of the act to all of Canada by means of the federal government exercising its residual power of peace, order and good government, as provided for in the preamble to section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Second, and in the alternative, as the legislation applies to all reserve lands under the meaning of the Indian Act, the legislation should likewise be extended to apply to category IA lands covered under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It is unclear whether the bill, as it is presently drafted, applies to category IA lands. Amending clause 2 of the bill, by adding that ``federal lands'' includes category IA lands, would remove any ambiguity and would be congruent with the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Third, the legislation should be amended to include a provision requiring the responsible federal minister to obtain the advice of, or consult with, the coordinating committee prior to listing the species at risk in the James Bay and Northern Quebec territory. The consultative role of the coordinating committee as the preferential and exclusive spokesman empowered to formulate procedures, recommendations, positions and views respecting the determination of species requiring protection is an important treaty right and explicitly provided for under section 24.5.2 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

It is obvious that any legislation that purports to designate and list species at risk in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Territory without first obtaining the advice of, or consulting with, the coordinating committee, is in contradiction of Cree treaty rights, and is in our opinion unconstitutional.

Four, we suggest that the legislation be amended to include a provision requiring the responsible minister to prepare management plans in consultation with any affected wildlife management board that is established under aboriginal land claims legislation. Moreover, the federal government has already clearly acknowledged the need and requirement of the responsible minister, in carrying out his legislative duty to prepare recovery plans for these species designated as endangered or threatened, to consult with any wildlife management board established under aboriginal and claims legislation and affected by the plan. Accordingly, a similar provision must exist in relation to the preparation of management plans as set out in clause 45 of the bill.

Five, the bill must be amended to strengthen the role aboriginal peoples shall have in the identification, understanding, management and recovery of species at risk. This can be achieved through a variety of measures.

Specifically, the bill should be amended to allow aboriginal peoples standing on both the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The council is to assist the federal minister in appointing members of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and provide general direction on the activities of the committee and on the development and implementation of recovery plans as contemplated in subclauses 12(3) and 13(2).

.0855

The committee contemplated in the draft bill is the official body that will review the status of species and designate species it considers to be at risk. As well, decisions of this committee must be based on a status report that must identify the critical habitat of the species and evaluate existing potential threats to the species and its critical habitat.

Although traditional knowledge is listed as a potential area of expertise for gaining membership on the committee, this by no means firmly establishes traditional knowledge as an integral component in the decision-making process. Implicit in the act is recognition of the value of aboriginal and traditional knowledge to the principles of sustainable development, ecosystem management and the protection and recovery of species at risk. However, the act must go further to entrench the contribution aboriginal people can make to the protection of species at risk.

It is in this vein that we recommend clauses 12 and 14 of the bill be amended to require aboriginal representation on the council and on the committee respectively. Only by so doing can the federal government ensure that aboriginal and traditional knowledge and information is properly understood and considered by the council and by the committee in the deliberations and decisions that designate and list species at risk.

Sixth, we request that the legislation allow for an advance environmental and social impact review as established under section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with regard to developmental projects and activities that may affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat in the James Bay and northern Quebec territory and for which a person has applied under the act for an agreement exemption permit or similar authorization.

Clauses 46 and 47 of the bill provide for an exemption from the prohibitionary provisions contained in clauses 32 and 33 through agreements made by the responsible minister or through permits issued by the responsible minister. Such agreements or exemption permits can only be granted where the responsible minister is satisfied that feasible mitigating measures have been adopted to minimize as far as possible the adverse impact on the species in question or its habitat. Accordingly, it is imperative that the exemption mechanism provided for in clauses 45 and 46 of the bill be harmonized with the environmental and social protection regime established in section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

This can best be achieved by amending clauses 46 and 47 by adding a provision requiring that in the case of proposed projects and activities on territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, for which an agreement or an exemption permit is sought, information respecting the said activity be submitted first to the federal administrator of the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment for environmental and social impact review of the project by the appropriate treaty committees prior to the granting of such permits by or the entering into agreements with the responsible minister.

The government may attempt to assure us that the changes we seek are unnecessary in light of subclause 2(2) of the bill. However, Bill C-65, as it presently is drafted, is unconstitutional insofar as it violates certain Cree aboriginal and treaty hunting, fishing and trapping rights and rights with regard to the environmental and social protection regime. The amendments we propose are therefore essential to the legislation's legality in this respect. As matters of principle, they should be expressly articulated in the act.

In concluding, Mr. Chairman, we hope the committee members recognize the spirit of compromise in which these amendments have been proposed. Our people are mindful of the importance of strong legislation designed to protect and preserve endangered wildlife resources throughout Canada.

These amendments in no way undermine Parliament's aim and commitment to provide legal protection for wildlife species at risk. Far from it. They will in fact further that aim by entrenching the role of aboriginal peoples in the conservation of wildlife in this country and ensuring that aboriginal rights under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are respected.

.0900

Thank you for allowing me to appear before you. I will be more than happy to answer questions. I have with me Deborah Freedman, legal counsel for the Crees, and Geoffrey Quayle, an adviser to the Grand Council of the Crees. Thank you. Megwetch.

The Chairman: Mr. Moses, thank you very much. In light of what you said at the beginning, that you have time limitations, are you saying you would prefer to have questions now, or can we proceed with the other witnesses and then have, as we usually do, a round or two of questions?

Mr. Moses: I'm perfectly comfortable to take questions now. I have a bit of a time constraint, but I leave it in your hands, Mr. Chairman. I can answer questions if people want to ask questions now.

The Chairman: Maybe we'll have a round of questions now and then we'll proceed with the next witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin, would you like to start?

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Allow me to begin with a quote from a document prepared by the Library of Parliament:

The Aboriginal peoples of Canada have a history of dependence upon and stewardship of wildlife species that uniquely qualifies them for participation in the protection of species.

But there are no Aboriginal members on COSEWIC. I think the first thing the aboriginal communities should do is try to get at least one voting seat on that committee, which could allow them to be heard, and to control and monitor the bill. They should immediately ask the federal government to pay attention to their situation and give them at least one seat on COSEWIC.

I would like to know what role the aboriginal communities wish to play. They have certainly given you a mandate to protect endangered species in your area. You have an important role to play and, as such, you should have a seat on COSEWIC.

[English]

Mr. Moses: Thank you. As I have stated this morning, we do support and propose very strongly that aboriginal peoples participate in whatever development plans, direction or advice are to be provided to the Government of Canada or to the responsible minister. There is already in Quebec with the Cree, the Inuit and the Naskapi, the precedent where aboriginal peoples participate in a committee that advises the minister insofar as regulations for the management of species of wildlife in the province of Quebec are concerned.

Although we'd like to see a strong role being played by aboriginal peoples, I think the fact that aboriginal peoples possess traditional knowledge of species of wildlife and their habitat over a large part of Canada should certainly not be overlooked. Opportunities should be provided for aboriginal people to participate, to give direction.

I have no hesitation in saying that whatever role aboriginal people can play in this that is more than just a consultative role would certainly be appreciated. We certainly would like to play a role that is more participatory than consultative or advisory.

.0905

If we can provide some direction in assisting the minister and the government in developing wildlife management plans, or recovery plans, or in addressing concerns of development that may impact aboriginal peoples in certain parts of Canada, then certainly we would like to take advantage of that. The stronger the role aboriginal people can play, whether it be on the council or the committee, the better it would be.

Too often, aboriginal people are being subjected to what we call consultation. Consultation is not necessarily consultation in my mind when a government, or a representative of a government, or a minister comes to you and tells you what he plans to do and that's it, there's no consultation. This is just a one-way process of telling you what the government is going to be doing.

You have to take the opinion and the concerns of the aboriginal peoples into consideration before making the final decision. To me, that is a degree of consultation, not where you're told what the situation is or how things are going to happen. So in that respect we'd like to be a part of the process. We'd like to share our traditional knowledge, to participate in the process and therefore have a better understanding of the outcome of the process and be able to live with it and appreciate it more.

The Chairman: Yes. Merci, Monsieur.

Mr. Adams.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Moses, I wondered if, to your knowledge or the knowledge of your colleagues, traditional ecological knowledge has been used so far in the listing process of COSEWIC?

Mr. Moses: Which? Species?

Mr. Adams: Yes. In determining the listing of any species that have been listed so far by COSEWIC, I just wondered if traditional knowledge had been used.

Mr. Geoffrey Quayle (Researcher, Environmental Issues, Grand Council of the Crees):I am not aware of that right now in terms of Quebec because it is a province, and I'm not aware if COSEWIC has contacted anybody from the Cree nation in terms of the listing process that currently exists.

Mr. Adams: Okay.

Mr. Moses: Maybe not in the listing process, but let's say in our participation through the coordinating committee as provided under section 24 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. We have Crees and Inuit who are members of the coordinating committee. It is through them, the Cree trappers organization, the Cree trappers themselves, and individual Crees who possess traditional knowledge about wildlife species and the habitat of these species that it is translated.

Mr. Adams: If I could, Mr. Chair, I'd like to pursue another line.

Some of the witnesses who have appeared before us have been concerned about private property and limitations to the development of private property. I wondered in the case of the first nations with respect to community-held land or private property - I don't know the exact circumstance in James Bay, but private property if it's there - if you've given any thought to compensation, where in fact certain types of use are limited by the need to protect an endangered species.

Mr. Moses: I will try to answer it insofar as it concerns the Crees. It may best be answered for the rest of Canada by the representatives of the Assembly of First Nations and other representatives who will be making submissions.

In the case of the Crees, we are so far north and removed from the southern part of Quebec where private property is more of a concern than it is up in the north. As I said in my statement, we are the original inhabitants, or the permanent inhabitants, aside from a few mining towns. In an area that's over 500,000 square miles, we're the only people living there. We hold the land in collectivity. Traditionally, we see ourselves as owners of all of the 450,000 square miles of land there.

In the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement there is provision insofar as development is concerned. I don't know if this will answer your question, but where there is development on certain lands, of course compensation is provided for, either in the form of compensation as defined by the parties or by replacing land that may be affected by the project that is in place.

.0910

I think when you're talking about it in terms of a certain species, the agreement provides for the exclusive right to harvest certain species throughout different parts of the territory. I won't belabour it by explaining all that to you, because it is quite technical and in-depth. Also, the Crees have an exclusive right to certain species, which they can harvest, for which no permits can be issued for the hunting and fishing activities of non-native people. These are exclusively for Cree harvesting.

So as far as compensation is concerned, I can't seem to recall.... I'm not saying there isn't any or there shouldn't be any. Just because it may be silent doesn't mean it should be interpreted as not being capable of being compensated.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Moses, on page 10 of your brief you make a reference to the fact the provincial enforcement of their laws has been almost non-existent. Could you, for the committee, expand on that observation, please?

Mr. Quayle: You're referring to the legislation currently in the provinces?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Quayle: My understanding of the legislation in Quebec is that on its list of endangered species currently there are only nine plants and a very long waiting list for other species. It doesn't seem to match the present COSEWIC list, and it's been in force since 1989. So we don't have a lot of confidence there. Maybe there will be changes in the future. We hope there will be.

The Chairman: You are referring to plants. What about mammals and molluscs and lichens?

Mr. Quayle: It's my understanding that the eastern cougar and the woodland caribou are going to be put forward on the list anytime now.

The Chairman: There are no mammals at the present time?

Mr. Quayle: That's my understanding.

The Chairman: So it's a very short list, in other words.

Mr. Quayle: Yes, and a very lengthy waiting list.

The Chairman: Any comments on other provinces?

Mr. Quayle: I'm not too aware of what's happening in the other provinces right now. I'm only familiar with Quebec.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will now proceed with the next witness, Mr. Mercredi, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you,Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, I thank this committee for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-65. I also want to thank Environment Canada for taking the initiative in introducing this bill to the House of Commons.

First nations people have always been supportive of efforts to protect wildlife species from extirpation or extinction. The Assembly of First Nations is a national voice of first nations people in Canada. We represent some 633 first nations governments on a number of issues, including aboriginal rights, treaties, taxation, education, health and the environment.

We meet collectively to discuss and debate any particular issue. The chiefs decide on a strategy and then give me a mandate as the national chief to pursue any particular issue of concern on their behalf.

First nations people have, since time immemorial, understood and taken steps to protect their animal and plant life from extirpation or extinction. It has been necessary to do so to ensure both our physical and spiritual survival.

The preamble of the Convention on Biological Diversity correctly recognizes the convergent dependence of our traditional societies on biological resources. As people who fish, hunt, trap, farm and gather, our traditional economies only use what is needed. Rather than being societies practising sustainable development, we are in fact sustainable societies.

.0915

Our elders remind us that we are part of the family of life. The earth is our mother, the animal and the plant life our brothers and sisters, and the waters of the world are the bloodlines of our mother earth. We are physically the weakest members of the family of life. We are the only ones who require clothes to keep ourselves warm, the only ones who must make weapons to defend ourselves.

To compensate us for this physical weakness, the Creator gave us an intelligence that is far superior to the rest of creation. However, with this intelligence we were given the greatest responsibility to take care of all life. Despite our best efforts to protect animal and plant life over the years, survival of many species and the survival of our peoples is now at risk. It is the unsustainable economic development practices of Canadian society that are the major sources of this risk. It is the failure of the federal and provincial governments to implement their authorities in a consistent manner that is placing our survival as first nations societies, and our family of life, which includes the wildlife, at risk.

Clear-cutting, mining, hydroelectric development, and the creation of industries around these practices, have benefited Canadian society in jobs and profits, and the multinational corporations that sponsor these activities. However, most of the time it comes at the price of destruction of the environment where the activity takes place and, in the process, destruction of the traditional lifestyles of first nations peoples.

The Canada Endangered Species Protection Act must ensure that this destruction does not continue. We must ensure that not only is the wildlife protected, but the habitat where we live as well. It must ensure that first nations people who wish to continue the traditional lifestyles can. It must ensure that the federal and provincial governments cannot weaken its intent.

Unfortunately, this bill as it is written does not do that. This bill places little emphasis on habitat protection. We have always recognized the interrelationship of life and the need to maintain the habitat. We know that if one follows the natural laws of the world, it will ensure protection of the habitat.

Our medicine people can tell you that the sources of their medicines require maintaining the balance of nature. Our fishers can tell you that the waters where they get their fish must be free of contamination. Our hunters and trappers can tell you that the habitat of their traditional territories must be maintained or the animals will not stay there.

Canadian society has abandoned the natural laws for people-imposed laws. These laws allow pollution of the natural world as part of the cost of doing business. The unsustainable forestry, mining and hydroelectric development practices of Canadian society are major contributors to the habitat loss.

Loss of habitat accounts for 80% of the species decline in Canada.

If Canadian society had been following the natural laws of the world, there would be no need for the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. However, since that is not likely to happen, the provisions regarding habitat protection must be strengthened in the statute.

Habitat protection under this bill is limited only to federal lands. Unfortunately, wildlife species do not recognize these imaginary borders. Habitat protection must be extended to where the species travel, nest and raise their families, including provincial lands, and should be a mandatory requirement of recovery plans.

.0920

The preamble to the bill states that the role of the aboriginal peoples in Canada in the conservation of wildlife is especially important. There is also a clause that states the act will not abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights. However, there is nothing in the act that explicitly shows how these statements will be implemented. Aboriginal peoples are mentioned infrequently throughout the first 19 pages of the bill and then not at all after the 19th page. The only meaningful role of the aboriginal peoples is limited to wildlife management boards established under aboriginal land claims legislation.

While we support the recommendations of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in strengthening the role of wildlife management boards established under comprehensive land claims agreements, our concerns go far beyond the minimal role of these boards.

There are inherent indirect references to aboriginal peoples in discussions on traditional or community knowledge. It appears that the wording is copied from the Convention on Biological Diversity. But the convention is more explicit, referring to it as indigenous and local community knowledge.

It can be argued that the greatest amount of biodiversity in Canada can be found within first nation communities. The Walpole Island First Nation has identified over 37 species that are on the endangered list. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne purchased an island in the St. Lawrence River that contained nesting sites for blue herons and cranes. It is the only rookery in that area of theSt. Lawrence River.

As can be seen, first nations have been exercising jurisdiction over their territories since time immemorial. We know how to protect wildlife species. There is no need for special legislation to be imposed upon us. First nations reserves represent only 0.9% of the land mass of Canada. Yet the Government of Canada believes that this legislation is needed to tell us what to do on what we have been doing for eons.

Should our proposed amendments be ignored by Parliament, first nations should be exempted from this legislation. Why have first nations lands been singled out by the statute? Why are we being asked to pay the price for Canadian society's progress, while the source of the problems gets away scot-free? The bill should focus on the culprits who have placed the wildlife species and habitat at risk. It should be enforced on the lands of multinational corporations that exploit for personal gain, and also on provincial lands, on private lands - not just federal lands. By the way, our lands are not federal lands.

The bill should be amended to recognize the authority and jurisdiction of first nations to protect wildlife species within their territories. The definition section of the bill should be amended to include a definition of responsible authorities, meaning first nations, that choose to administer any provisions of this bill.

The application section should be amended to include provisions recognizing the above authority of our people. This recognition should not be in the form of a delegated authority, as first nations already have aboriginal treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act. Instead, this bill should contain a mechanism for harmonization of processes between the federal government and the first nations governments.

The act should be amended to allow for conservation agreements between responsible ministers and first nations governments for those first nations governments that wish to enter them. These agreements should be similar to the conservation agreement stated in the administration section of the statute in relation to recovery plans. First nations that participate in these agreements should also then be eligible for funding agreements contained in clause 8.

.0925

Under administration, clause 7 says that the responsible ministers may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with one or more provincial governments with respect to the administration of any provisions of the statute. This section isn't acceptable to first nations. It can be construed as abrogating from the aboriginal treaty rights of first nations people in Canada as contained in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

In addition, we believe protection of wildlife species can only be successful if there is a lead federal role. Otherwise, provincial jurisdictional issues will take precedence over the protection of wildlife species.

The Assembly of First Nations does not support any transfer of federal jurisdiction, power, or fiscal administrative authority regarding first nations' interests over to the provinces. The federal government has a fiduciary obligation to our people arising from treaty and aboriginal rights that cannot be transferred to the provinces. This obligation was created when the treaties were signed and will last and exist as long as the treaties last or exist. It is also based on our aboriginal rights and has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, first in the Guerin case and then in the Sparrow case.

In the Guerin decision, the fiduciary obligation was identified as arising when the first nations people surrendered their land to the Crown. The Crown then assumes a duty to deal with that land for the benefit of the surrendering first nation. In other words, the fiduciary obligation has arisen since the Crown has undertaken to act in another party's interest, in this case that of the first nations peoples.

In the Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court expanded the concept of fiduciary obligation that was first identified in Guerin. Sparrow extended the fiduciary obligation to apply to aboriginal rights. The Supreme Court in this decision stated that the government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to aboriginal people.

Presently, we can't trust the provinces to deal with first nations fairly. Their past conduct in relation to land and resources and first nations has been deplorable. Our people continue to deal with the impacts of their policies and decisions. The provinces continue to grant timber and mineral extraction licences to multinational corporations in land claims and land entitlement areas of our provinces. We have no voice in their processes.

Our treaties are violated daily by the federal and provincial governments, who favour hydro development, mining development, forestry development, and any kind of development, even when our way of life is being directly and adversely impacted. This proposed act might inadvertently help to protect our aboriginal treaty rights, but it is quite clear to us that the outright protection of our lands and our peoples has never been the priority of successive Canadian governments. Had our culture and rights been properly protected by your society, there would be no need for this legislation.

We are not saying there should be no relationship between first nations and the provinces. However, this relationship must be based on three principles: respect, equity, and empowerment. The provinces must show respect to first nations by recognizing that we have authority and jurisdiction over our territories. They must then recognize that while we are not rich in terms of money, we have the knowledge of the natural world, which is of equal value. This sweat equity must be recognized.

Finally, empowerment, or the sharing of powers with others, is a true exercise of power. The provinces must be prepared to enter into cooperative management agreements with first nations in areas where there is shared jurisdiction.

We are at a time when the federal and provincial governments have undergone extensive downsizing. The environment and natural resources departments at both levels of government have taken the biggest cuts. This in turn has created a large void in environmental protection. We question whether the provinces will be in a position to effectively assume responsibility for administering provisions of this act.

.0930

First nations are in an excellent position to fill the void in environmental protection. We are located in the areas where the greatest biodiversity already exists. We have an inherent respect for the environment and a knowledge of the natural world that is a valuable in-kind contribution. There is only a need to build on this knowledge and to combine it with western science.

The Convention on Biological Diversity states that each contracting party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, cooperate in providing financial and other support for in situ conservation. In keeping with this intent, funding should be provided to first nations in support of their assuming greater responsibilities in protecting wildlife species. It would cover first nations environmental conservation staff and the training for them. It would cover the cost of first nations developing recovery plans and implementing them.

The source of funding for these activities could be found by charging a royalty from the multinational corporations who benefit from removing the natural resources from first nations' territory, or for that matter from the rest of Canada. It is time they started sharing the profits from the taking of the natural resources from aboriginal peoples and Canadians.

We are concerned with the prohibition clause of the statute and the potential impact on traditional lifestyles and cultural practices of first nations people. The concern arises from the possibility of our people possessing plants or wildlife species that have a spiritual, cultural, subsistence, or medicinal meaning and at the same time could be on someone's list of an endangered or threatened species.

We share the same concern as is intended by this clause. We would not support the wilful killing, harming, harassing, capturing, or taking of a listed, endangered, or threatened species. However, there also has to be a recognition in the proposed act that first nations people can possess plants or wildlife species that are of a spiritual, cultural, subsistence, or medicinal meaning to them. It must be understood by Canadian society that because of our inherent respect for the environment our people would ensure there would always be ways for plant and wild animal species to survive for future generations to come.

Clause 36 of the bill contains general exceptions to the prohibitions. It is recommended that aboriginal people who are in possession of plants or wildlife species for spiritual, cultural, subsistence, or medicinal purposes be added to this list of exceptions, to the prohibition clause.

First nations societies have always co-existed with the rest of nature. We recognize that if our traditional lifestyles can continue, then wildlife species and their habitat will be protected.

Like this legislation, the creation of federal and provincial parks is not the solution. They represent only band-aid responses that will further limit where wildlife species can be protected.

Canadian society has created a threat to wildlife species through its unsustainable developmental practices. It must change its economic development practices and make them truly sustainable. This is the only way to eliminate the threat to wildlife species. In the process we know our sustainable economies will be protected as well.

The Chairman: You have brought some far-reaching thoughts to the table, Chief Mercredi, and we thank you for that.

Perhaps we should have a round of questions or two before we hear the next witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin, would you like to start?

.0935

Mr. Asselin: My question goes to the chief of the Assembly of First Nations. You have used several words in your submission - which is very well done - which beg for an explanation.

You have talked about an ``agreement'', a ``convention'', a ``treaty'' and the ``act''. We also know that four Canadian provinces have laws to protect endangered species. Someone has said earlier that the laws pertaining to Aboriginal communities or to the First Nations take precedence over provincial and federal laws.

In light of the signed agreements and conventions, and of the treaties and laws governing aboriginal peoples, could the First Nations decide to ignore bill C-65 on the lands put aside for them?

[English]

Mr. Mercredi: Let me first remind the member that we're not the problem. The fact that this legislation is being enacted by Parliament is because your society created the problem. It's because of the way in which you put money first, before human life or wildlife species, that you have a serious problem in this country.

When you first came to this land, you didn't come with the intent - at least I don't think you did - to destroy the environment, to pollute the waters and to threaten wildlife. Our people have co-existed with the wildlife and the land for centuries. When we made treaties with your ancestors, it was with the idea of protecting our way of life. Protecting our way of life would mean protecting the environment and the wildlife species and the plants that were very much integral to our society.

The treaty I belong to is Treaty 5, in northern Manitoba. Our people said you can move in, you can settle, you can live amongst us, we can share the land, but we don't want our way of life affected; we don't want it altered; we want it maintained. The treaty was made on the understanding that our societies would continue. They might change over time, but they would continue.

What has happened is that in the province of Manitoba, where mining, hydro development, and forestry development take precedence over the treaties, the land we can use to sustain our traditional lifestyle is shrinking. Each year it's shrinking. The development of provincial parks is further shrinking the areas we can use to sustain our way of life, which includes hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering of plants and so on.

That's the deal we made. Now, where's the obligation for keeping that way of life? It's not just on our side. It's on the side of your society too. But that's where your governments have failed. Your governments have not respected their treaty obligations to our people. So the mining comes first, the forestry comes first, the hydro development comes first. The animals and the first nations come last.

This is the nature of the relationship in this country in the past century. That's why we live in conditions of poverty. That's why we have so many problems in our communities. That's why you have so much wealth as a country; so much wealth the United Nations keeps saying to the rest of the world Canada is the model for quality of life and standard of life. It is not the model for us.

.0940

When this legislation is enacted, it has to respect the treaties and the aboriginal rights of our people. That's the deal you made with us.

So your obligation, as the Sparrow decision said to the fishermen in British Columbia, is to make sure the first nations people are not excluded from the resources, that they have a priority to the resource by virtue of the fact that they are indigenous to this land and that the commercial interests are secondary. If a particular species is endangered because of over-commercial use of that species, then it's your obligation in your society to make sure that practice is terminated, but not to the detriment of my people's rights. That's the perspective. Now that you have had the power over the last three centuries, you can't escape your relationship with us.

That's the message we have a difficult time getting across to white Canada, because now there's an assumption that we should just simply get rid of our traditions and become Canadians, white Canadians. You hear that in the House of Commons frequently from the Reform Party, but they represent a point of view that might be shared by the Liberals as well.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Mercredi. I understand why you can have a mistaken impression about what the Reform Party proposes, but we'll just leave it at that.

When you were going through page 4, you left the text in page 4 and said something by the way or as an aside to the effect that federal lands are not aboriginal lands or something like aboriginal lands are not federal lands. Could you just expand that point for me a little?

Mr. Mercredi: In 1872 some white people arrived in Grand Rapids with a title of treaty commissioner. They were sent there by the federal government. They came to see my people. They said they wanted us to sign on the dotted line this treaty they had made. They arrived with a piece of paper and they had my people sign it.

Our people said that was not the way they worked. So they sent them out. The treaty commissioners didn't get my people's signature until the following year. They came back and they had negotiations or some discussions. Some understandings were made.

As I grew up in Grand Rapids in the 1950s, the old people would say kitaskinaw oma; this is our land. They didn't say this is white man's land. They didn't say this is provincial land. They didn't say this is federal land. They said kitaskinaw oma. They didn't mean just the reserve.

When the old people made a wave like this with their hand to say kitaskinaw oma, it included Lake Winnipeg, and not just as far as the eye could see. The federal government enacted the Indian Act. When they passed that law, they broke our treaty. When they made the law, they said the Indians can only use and occupy the land. It's treated as land that belongs to the federal government. That's land we kept for ourselves. We never gave that to anybody, but the law says it belongs to the federal government.

The offence I'm taking to this legislation is that it would apply to reserves when it doesn't apply to provincial lands, where the greatest land mass exists for the protection of the habitat of all life and plant species. We can all see that. Making this apply to reserves will not protect the habitat of many plants and wildlife species because our land mass is so small. It's less than .09% of the land mass of Canada.

.0945

In terms of federal crown lands, I'm not sure what the percentage is compared to the land mass of the country - I'd like to know that for future reference too - but I do know that the provinces across the country have the constitutional mandate for land and resources. In effect, they're the ones who get to decide what projects go ahead, and the recent interplay between the federal and provincial governments in environmental legislation will give even more power to the provinces to circumvent federal laws, such as the environmental protection acts or even this statute.

If you look at the way the statute is drafted, it's designed to protect projects of economic value to Canadian society. For example, in Hinton, Alberta, there is a proposal being considered for strip mining in the area, which would affect certain wildlife species. The interesting thing is that there has not been any independent study done on the impact of that project on the environment and the wildlife species - including the first nations people - in that area. Instead, the way the legislation is written now, the proponents of these projects are given the mandate to do the environmental assessments, and in my view that weakens the objectivity of anything done to assess the impacts.

If you and I have a big investment and a property with which we can create wealth, we're going to do the minimum required to meet the legislation in terms of studies, but we will spend all our money to make sure our project proceeds.

The legislation right now in Canada is so weak that this legislation is almost meaningless already because of the amendments that were made to the federal legislation, and now also because of the consideration given by the federal government to transferring environmental protection to the provinces.

Mr. Forseth: Okay. I have one last little point. On page 7, in your conclusion, you say generally that modern society in its way and manner is basically truly unsustainable and you say that economic development practices that make it truly sustainable are what you advocate. Seeing that you're outlining a general concept, could you maybe just attach an example to that to put some meat on the bones, so to speak?

Mr. Mercredi: The best example I can give you is my own community in the province of Manitoba, a place called Grand Rapids, where in the 1920s some explorations were made in our community for potential hydro development. It accelerated in the 1950s. When the time came to decide on this, the decision was made without taking into consideration our philosophy as indigenous people. We were never consulted on the project. It was a decision made between the federal government and the Province of Manitoba. They constructed a dam that flooded our entire trapping area, a dam that also obstructed the natural flow of the fish who used to go up the rapids for spawning, different kinds of species, including sturgeon. The sturgeon spawning grounds were completely destroyed by this project.

.0950

A sustainable hydro development would mean taking the water energy that is there, without the flooding that was created in Grand Rapids. They were very powerful rapids. It was probably one of the most powerful rapids in the country. The natural energy of those rapids alone should have been big enough, in my opinion - not being a scientist or engineer - to have produced the hydro-electric power desired by the Province of Manitoba.

So it's just a question of how things are done. Sustainable hydro development is possible without reversing the natural flow of rivers, which was done in the Churchill hydro development project. Two rivers were affected and one natural flow was totally reversed. All these man-made experiments have had devastating effects on the environment and the people affected.

Sustainable development should also include the concept where people closest to the resource should benefit economically from the exploitation of that resource. That means the hydro project should have been constructed to create employment for the people, training for the people so they could in fact manage the hydro project or be somehow qualified in terms of the skilled labour and the professional positions that became available. More than that, in terms of the resource and its potential, it should have benefited the people first in the surrounding communities. We were the last to get hydro power in our community, yet the process was right there. These things really grate the soul.

When you look at where the hydro-electric power went...it didn't even go to the city of Winnipeg; primarily it went to the United States. It was sold to the Americans, but the Americans were able to use their electric power. In the meantime, we had to stop our way of life.

So what was done was totally unsustainable for us, and in fact it was destructive to our society. It ended all our trapping activities and it drastically affected our commercial fishing industry. The pollution that resulted from the mercury in the natural soils...the jury is still out on that one. There's nothing sustainable in flooding Indian reserves, which was the product of the Grand Rapids project.

An entire community had to be resettled. The Chemahawin Reserve had to be totally relocated because their reserve land was under water. The treaty that we signed is the same treaty they have. We were told the treaty would last forever, as long as the sun shone, the grass grew and the rivers flowed. But we didn't know they were going to stop the flow of Grand Rapids. But the sun is still shining and the grass is still growing in a few places. The fact remains they flooded land that was protected by the treaty. That issue is still outstanding in terms of litigation between the first nations people and the federal government.

There are also issues of compensation with the Province of Manitoba. Manitoba Hydro have settled with my community, but the province and the federal government are still on the hook.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

We'll have Mr. Adams followed by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Mercredi, we appreciate your presentation. I think many of us agree with your point that this legislation should not be necessary. It's essentially clean-up legislation, and what we're trying to do as well as we can is deal with the situation that already exists.

Secondly, I'd like you to know that in my reading I'm about in the middle of the first volume of the royal commission report. I can't promise to read all the volumes, but the first one I recommend to my colleagues who have not yet begun it. The historical and philosophical part is well worth reading.

I'd like to ask you about your recommendation 4 with regard to clause 36 and what exactly are the implications of this exemption. Let's say a plant species, which was important for medicinal purposes, was endangered, presumably because its habitat was endangered. What would be the implications of this exemption in that case?

.0955

Mr. Mercredi: The best example I can give is the use of eagle feathers in some traditional ceremonies. Legislation in the United States prohibits the sale and trade of eagle feathers, and sometimes our people get into trouble with customs officers. I am aware of a few court cases involving eagle feathers, cases that have been brought to my attention since I've been national chief. They generally involve American Indians who have come to Canada to share their eagle feathers, either in a sweat lodge ceremony or sun-dance.

I guess in the United States certain eagles are protected as endangered species. In fact, one of those particular species is going to be impacted by the strip mining in Hinton, because that's where they nest in the spring and summer.

Our people don't go out and kill the animal. When they take the eagle feathers, if it's done in the traditional way, in the old way, then the animal stays alive. Only certain feathers are taken. Many of the elders who collect these feathers claim, and I have no reason to discount their belief, that they don't kill these animals. Sometimes these animals die a natural death. That's when they use these eagle feathers.

When it comes to plants, I'm not aware of any particular plant that is on the endangered list or extinction list or on whatever category of list except what I read here in terms of the Walpole Island community, where they have identified certain species they consider to be vulnerable. Our people do these things not to make them more vulnerable but to protect them.

The point I'm making is that the way we practice our traditions, if we are true to them, if our people carry on with these traditions, there's really no need for that legislation insofar as we are concerned. But if the aim of the federal government is in fact to protect wildlife, then they shouldn't go after Indian reserve land. They should go after provincial land, crown land, private land, where it's obvious that the habitat of certain species has been affected by ranching, mining, forestry and so on.

Mr. Adams: In the case of a plant species, though, let's say it was endangered and there were only a few left. It would be use of those plants, at least for the duration, in a way that would not put them at risk. For example, it wouldn't involve digging up the roots of the plants; it would be perhaps harvesting in such a way that they could grow again the following year, that type of thing.

Mr. Mercredi: I think if it's clear that a plant is on the endangered species list our people wouldn't harvest them. It would be counter-productive to do that.

The example I can give you is from 1987 or thereabouts, when I was living in The Pas and working as legal counsel to the band. They were approached by the provincial government to refrain from hunting moose, because according to scientific studies they'd done, the moose population was declining. The Indian people immediately said, ``Stop all the forestry that's going on around here, because the moose are being scared off by all this noise and that's why you don't see them. When you do your head counts, they won't be there because they've moved onto other parts of the north.''

.1000

In the end, people know what is in their interests. There was a voluntary plan not to hunt wild moose at the same level as in previous years. Hunting was allowed, but it was diminished. Through that voluntary act of self-regulation of that first nation, the moose population increased.

Our people are not the problem here. That's the message I'm giving you. The problem is not even, in my opinion, the average Canadian out there trying to make a living. The problem is how your society allows for development to take place without regard to the habitat of certain plants and animals. That's the problem, and this legislation doesn't even tackle that problem. It skirts around it. In fact, clause 46 of the bill is to give a way out for development projects.

My question to you is, when it comes to this statute and any other act of Parliament dealing with the environment, which statute does the minister responsible for this act administer? Which is stronger, this legislation or another act of Parliament such as the environmental statute? Does your minister get to pick and choose what he wants to apply when it comes to protecting wildlife species?

Mr. Adams: Yes. You're the lawyer; I'm not. You could probably answer your own question better than I can, with regard to statutes.

Mr. Mercredi: But that's not a legal decision. That's a political choice. The same minister that you give charge for the environment, you give charge for this bill. My question is, which is stronger? The environmental protection or this statute? If this is stronger, will he use this one or the other one? These are issues you ought to look at as well.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Chair, I'm sure the witness is right. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams.

Mr. Taylor, please.

Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much.

Welcome, Chief Mercredi. I think Mr. Adams is right: you are right.

I agree as well that the legislation should apply to provincial lands, and I think your point is very well taken in that regard.

My question relates to recommendation 2, particularly the part in the last paragraph on page 4 of the English text:

The Act should be amended to allow for Conservation Agreements between responsible ministers and First Nation governments for those First Nation governments who wish to enter them.

I'm just wondering if there are currently co-management agreements in place that may perhaps provide a model for this suggestion, or if you can give us some idea of how conservation agreements might work between first nations governments and responsible ministers.

At the same time, could you give us some of your thoughts on what happens when the system sometimes breaks down? I think of the case two years ago in Alberta where British Columbia logging interests exploited aboriginal economic needs and clear-cut large sections of reserve land. How do we ensure that situations like that don't occur?

Mr. Mercredi: I'm going to ask one of my technical staff members to respond to the first part of the question in terms of examples of co-management.

.1005

On the last part of your intervention, the example you gave where there was an exploitation of timber resources in the land was clearly an example of the system breaking down.

That's why our people say that when it comes to Indian land, it has to be held in common for the people, and that no individuals or group of individuals or families within a particular reserve should have the power or the mandate to take advantage of the reserve land for their own personal gain. That's why I'm very troubled with Ron Irwin's initiatives to amend the Indian Act. That's why 70% of our communities are saying no to Ron Irwin, and yet we're told he's proceeding in December.

One of the amendments that they're contemplating is the idea of privatizing Indian land, which would be completely contrary to the way we hold title now, which is in common with all the people in the community. That's consistent with our own culture as a people. Privatization of land - whether you call it tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, or leasehold interest - is something that is inconsistent with the Indian culture. As soon as you amend the statute in the way in which Ron Irwin desires to do, it allows for exploitation of those lands by outside interests.

For example, under the new regime contemplated by Ron Irwin, people could use the Indian land to deal with the bank for some business interest that they want to get involved in. In time, if the business were to fail, that piece of property would then be held by the bank. It's really a dangerous idea that our people oppose, but for some reason the Minister of Indian Affairs thinks he knows best what Indian people need.

I don't know how your government - and I'm talking to the Liberal members of Parliament here - is going to face our people when the next election comes, if that statute is imposed on us. Right now, even with very little advocacy on our part, we have received band council resolutions and letters from over 70% of our communities. Each day we get one more BCR from one more community. As I said, I represent 633 communities, and 70% of that is a huge number. I think the government would be foolish to proceed, but we'll see what they do.

To respond to the first part of your question, I'll ask my colleague.

Mr. James Ransom (Environment Coordinator, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you.

Your question about existing conservation agreements is a difficult one to answer. There have been attempts at co-management agreements. I think earlier you heard from the James Bay Cree, and I think that's an example of an attempt to co-manage the resources. I know Akwesasne is involved in a model forest project that involves the Province of Ontario and an industry - in this case Domtar.I know they're attempting that, but the biggest problem is that the agreements have to be based on respect, equity, and empowerment, and unless you have those ingredients it's not co-management. The problem in the past has been that all the agreements were one-sided, with either the province or the federal government dictating the terms to the first nations. We're saying that for the purposes of this act we need agreements that are a lot more fair and that are more of a partnership than what we have seen in the past.

.1010

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mercredi: The next presenter will talk about co-management that involves our people jointly with the Inuit people and governments.

The Chairman: We have one last question, and then we go to the next presenter.

Madame Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you.

The first presenter this morning encouraged us to exercise our residual power of peace, order and good government. We have had other witnesses from the agricultural community before this committee, and they have told us that if we exercised the power of peace, order and good government, we would lose in the courts. I'm just wondering if any of our witnesses have comments.

Mr. Mercredi: I think that's probably a good example of why federal powers should never be transferred to the provinces. Unless you retain some plenary authority over certain jurisdictions, different interests in society will play one against the other. The agricultural community has a strong vested interest. In terms of the culprits that I identified earlier for habitat loss, the agriculture community is high on the list.

When it comes to migratory birds, I don't think there's any question about who has the authority. It's the federal government. When it comes to migrating species - that was the other part of our submission - I don't think animals know provincial borders. But if there's any trans-border crossing of wildlife - or even plants, for that matter - I think the federal government can argue jurisdiction.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what the Supreme Court will decide. But some steps have to be taken to protect the species, even if it goes against powerful interests. The fact of the matter is that mining companies like Inco and Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting, and forestry companies like Repap and others don't want anybody to interfere with their freedom. These people have so much power that they can do whatever they like and trample on anything they want for a fistful of dollars.

The Canadian government is scared of these interests. They come after us as first nations and say that these laws will apply on our land, but they're not going to go after Repap in terms of their leasehold interest. That's the unfairness of this legislation. The wrong people are being targeted for the measures that have to be taken by the powerful economic interests in society.

The trouble with Parliament and your division of powers is that if you take steps that exceed your jurisdiction, someone is going to take you to court. That's the weakness of your government. It's quite apparent to us, as first nations people, that the way in which you divide your powers is not in the common good of your own people. Why you want to impose your system on us is something that we don't understand.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Arreak, would you like to start with your presentation, please.

Mr. Malachi Arreak (Board Member, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, all.

First of all, I would like to introduce myself and my colleague. With me today is Michael d'Eca, legal counsel to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, also known as the NWMB.

.1015

I'm Malachi Arreak, member of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and resident of the hamlet of Pond Inlet, situated on the northern tip of Baffin Island, which is above the 70th parallel. Pond Inlet is one of the prettiest places on earth. It is home to many species of wildlife, including the endangered bowhead whale.

I've come a long way to speak to you, and I trust that what I have to say will be useful, not only for you and our board, but for all wildlife, especially the endangered wildlife, which should be the primary concern for all of us.

I was appointed to the board by the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the body that represents the 19,000 Inuit of Nunavut. I have been a member of this board since its inception. Previous to that I was one of the union negotiators for the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

I should make it clear, however, that I appear before you not on behalf of NTI, but I am representing the NWMB and the institution of public government, created by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. This is an agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

I would like to briefly talk to the co-management board, which Ovide Mercredi referred to as the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Management Board, composed of aboriginal users of that caribou herd.

I understand you have all received copies of our board's written submission on Bill C-65. I hope that when we have finished this session today you will take the time to carefully review this submission. Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Michael, me, or the chairman of our board, Ben Kovic. We would be very happy to assist the committee in whatever may we can, and we will help with any follow-up work that the committee identifies as necessary.

I would like to point out that Michael is based in Ottawa, so any meetings, conferences, or consultations with him will be easy and inexpensive to arrange.

Before I get into the substance of our board's submission, I'd like to make a couple of very important preliminary points. Nothing that the board is calling for is an attempt to extend, enhance, or in any way increase the authority of our board. The NWMB has a certain jurisdiction under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. What we are asking is that jurisdiction be recognized and respected in this act. To fail to do so, I can tell you from experience, will lead to confusion and misunderstanding among the public, while officials are trying in good faith to implement and administer this act. It can lead to jurisdictional disputes and costly attempts to assert and/or defend perceived rights. It will certainly divert valuable time, resources, and attention from species at risk.

We have suggested changes to the bill that are practical and reasonable improvements. They will serve to clarify what must be done to integrate responsibilities under the land claims agreements with those set out in the bill. The result will be a better, stronger, and more effective endangered species act, and I know that is what we are all working towards.

I'd just like to briefly explain what our board is and what its jurisdiction encompasses with respect to endangered species. Our board is a co-managing body made up of nine individuals, four appointed by Inuit organizations, three by the Governor in Council, and one by a commissioner, executive council, and from nominations provided by a board. A chairperson is appointed by the Governor in Council.

This board is very important within the agreement, with far-reaching powers, duties, and functions over wildlife management and access to wildlife in the Nunavut settlement area.

Section 5.2.33 of the agreement mandates that this board shall be the main instrument and main regulator of access to wildlife and have the primary responsibility in relation thereto in the manner described in the agreement.

.1020

The appropriate minister retains the authority to accept, reject or vary certain decisions of this board, including those pertaining to harvesting wildlife and to designation and protection of species at risk and habitat protection, pursuant to sections 5.3.7 to 5.3.23 of the agreement.

Both the minister and our board are required to exercise their responsibilities under the agreement in accordance with principles of conservation. These principles encompass the maintenance of natural balance of ecological systems within an Inuit settlement area; the protection of wildlife habitat; the maintenance of a vital and healthy wildlife population capable of sustaining harvesting needs as defined in article 5 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; and the restoration and revitalization of depleted populations of wildlife or wildlife habitat.

Finally, when urgent and unusual circumstances require an immediate modification in harvesting activities, the minister or the minister's delegated agent may make and implement any reasonable interim decision, to be followed by a full board review as soon as practicable thereafter.

For the purposes of this present examination of the bill developed by Environment Canada, it is vital to point out the following sections and articles of the land claims agreement. Section 2.12.2: where there is an inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial or local government laws and the agreement, the agreement shall prevail to the extent of that inconsistency or conflict.

A very large portion of Canada's land mass falls within the Nunavut settlement area. In addition, our marine environment, which extends to the 12-mile territorial sea limit, occupies a significant portion of Canada's overall marine environment. Any restriction or quota on harvesting can only be established, modified or removed by the board. Those are sections 5.6.4, 5.6.16, 5.6.48 and 5.6.51.

A board to have the authority to approve the designation of rare, threatened and endangered species within the Nunavut settlement area - that is under section 5.2.34(f). Further, the board has the authority within the settlement area to approve plans for management, classification, protection or restocking of endangered species.

The board also has the authority within the Nunavut settlement area to approve plans for management and protection of particular wildlife habitat.

Clearly, legislation intended to decrease or help the harvesting of endangered, threatened or vulnerable species from within the Nunavut settlement area, or the outer land-fast ice zone, or to otherwise designate, classify, manage, protect or control them, or their habitat, must recognize and respect the extensive jurisdiction of our board.

Our board is very concerned that the bill, as presently drafted, does not take into account that jurisdiction. A number of changes are required to the proposed legislation in order to strengthen it, to ensure that it's consistent with agreements, and to avoid confusion in future disputes or misunderstandings.

I would now like to turn to our specific concerns with Bill C-65 and offer a number of recommendations to improve the act.

The preamble acknowledges that responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among the various levels of government, that it is important to work together, and that the role of aboriginal peoples is especially important. However, it is silent with respect to the vital role in wildlife conservation played by management bodies established under land claims agreements. The NWMB is an essential player in the process.

We would suggest inclusion of the following modification to the ninth paragraph of the preamble:

the roles of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and of the wildlife management boards established under aboriginal land claims legislation, in the conservation of wildlife in this country, are especially important, and

Then continue with the rest.

.1025

In defining the status report the bill states that it is a report:

containing a summary of the best available scientific information or traditional or community knowledge on the status of a wildlife species.

Such a definition implies that scientific information and traditional knowledge are mutually exclusive. If one is obtainable, the other either does not exist or is not necessary.

These areas of knowledge should be viewed as complementary. Whenever possible, every effort should be made to gather both together in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the status of a wildlife species.

Accordingly, our board would recommend the following modifications to this definition so that it reads:

``Status report'' means a report in accordance with the requirements of subsection 20(2), containing a summary of the best available scientific information and traditional or community knowledge on the status of a wildlife species.

Clauses 12 to 30 set out the authority and responsibilities of the council and COSEWIC. Between them these two bodies hold the keys for the designation of wildlife species as endangered, threatened or vulnerable and to much that follows from that designation, including placement on the list of wildlife species at risk and recovery and management plans.

Although the board exercises an extensive jurisdiction over such vital matters as the designation of rare, threatened and endangered species, harvesting restrictions and approval of plans for the protection and management of endangered species and/or their habitats, there is no mention of such jurisdiction in any of these sections.

Within the Nunavut settlement area, in order for the system envisioned by Bill C-65 to work, the role of the NWMB in that system must be acknowledged and respected.

In my view it is vital to keep in mind that within the Nunavut settlement area it is the board that must approve designations, recovery plans and management plans.

Essentially, the council and COSEWIC must work in consultation with our board in order to ensure that when it comes time for the board's approval, we fully understand COSEWIC's position and, just as importantly, we fully understand and have confidence in the process that led to the adoption of that position.

Subclause 14(1) of the bill states that members of COSEWIC must have expertise drawn from certain ``scientific'' disciplines or from ``traditional or community knowledge of the protection of the species at risk''. There is, then, no definite requirement for any member to have traditional or community knowledge. Without such expertise on the committee, traditional and community knowledge and information will reach COSEWIC only through indirect means, if at all. The accuracy and weight given to such knowledge and information will be considerably weaker than if the appropriate experts were committee members.

Given that the role of aboriginal people of Canada in the conservation of wildlife in this country is extremely important, it appears essential that the wording of clause 14 be modified to reflect that role and to ensure that traditional and community knowledge is properly communicated, understood and considered in the deliberations and decisions of COSEWIC.

Based on those considerations, our board recommends the following modifications to this part of the bill.

We recommend subclause 12(4), a new provision, which will read:

The Council shall seek the advice of the appropriate wildlife management boards, established under aboriginal land claims legislation, when carrying out its responsibilities under subsection (3).

We recommend that subclause 14(1) read:

Membership on COSEWIC must have expertise drawn from disciplines such as conservation biology, population dynamics, taxonomy, systematics or genetics. No fewer than two members must have traditional or community knowledge of the protection of species at risk.

.1030

You may well ask, why two members? That's 22% of COSEWIC. Aboriginal people do not make up 22% of the population. That's true, but what should be the measure here? Percentage of the human population? No. The focus should not be on humans. It should be on the wildlife, their habitat and the people occupying that territory.

As I understand it, federal lands comprise about 3% of Canada's land territory. This bill covers 60% of the land. Almost all of that extra 57% is comprised of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Again, we're not sure, because of division coming about, whether it's going to be Bob, GNWT or what have you. I'll leave that up to your imagination.

As you know, the territories are predominantly inhabited by aboriginal people, especially Nunavut, where the population is almost exclusively Inuit. When looked at in that perspective, two members are not nearly enough. However, as is the custom amongst all aboriginal peoples, we wish to share and not be thought of as greedy.

Accordingly, no less than two members of COSEWIC should have traditional or community knowledge. We propose adding another provision to clause 14:

(2) Because traditional or community knowledge is often specific to a particular region, the Minister shall appoint to COSEWIC alternating members possessing such knowledge. Those members shall change, depending upon the species and range under consideration.

Our amendment would add new subclause 14(3), that:

In appointing the remaining members, the Minister must consider the importance of maintaining a membership that is broadly representative of all regions of Canada.

We also propose an amendment to add subclause 16(1), that:

(1) In exercising or performing its powers or functions, COSEWIC shall consult with the appropriate wildlife management boards established under aboriginal land claims legislation.

Under clause 18 we would add new subclause 18(2), that:

(2) The designation or classification of a wildlife species by COSEWIC shall be subject to a process of approval where required under applicable aboriginal land claims legislation.

We also propose new subclause 30(3), that:

(3) Where the designation or classification of a wildlife species by COSEWIC has received approval under applicable aboriginal land claims legislation, the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, shall include that wildlife species on the List.

Let me explain with respect to that last provision.

First of all, we mention ``approval under applicable aboriginal land claims legislation''. That approval under our land claims agreement is achieved through the following process. COSEWIC designates a species it considers to be at risk and classifies it as endangered. COSEWIC submits its classification, if the species is within the Nunavut settlement area, to the board for approval. That would be paragraph 5.2.34(f) of our land claim.

The board approves the classification. Under the claim, that approval constitutes a decision and is forwarded to the minister. The minister can accept or reject the decision in writing. If the decision is rejected, the board can reconsider in light of the written reasons and make the final decision, which is to be submitted to the minister. That is under section 5.3.21.

The minister can then accept, reject or vary the final decision. If the decision is accepted or varied, the minister is required under the land claim, ``to proceed forthwith to do all things necessary to implement the final decision, or the final decision as varied''.

Please also recall section 2.12.2 of our land claim agreement. Where there is an inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial or local government laws and the agreement, the agreement shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.

We therefore submit new subclause 30(3) to you.

.1035

Where the classification has received approval according to the steps outlined above, the minister is required under the agreement to do all things necessary to implement the final decision, and the Governor in Council, on the recommendations of the minister, shall include that wildlife species on the list.

On measures to protect listed species, I simply want to congratulate the department for adequately taking into account, with paragraph 36(1)(b) of the bill, the jurisdiction of wildlife management boards such as ours. It is precisely this type of acknowledgement of its authority that the board is seeking in various other parts of the bill.

The land claims agreement is very clear that recovery and management plans, such as those described in this act, dealing with wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Nunavut settlement area, must undergo the approval process as outlined in the agreement. I would refer you once again to paragraph 5.2.34(c) and item 5.2.34(d)(i) of the land claims agreement.

Accordingly, our board would suggest the following modifications to clauses 38 and 45. Under clause 38:

38.(3) The recovery plan shall be subject to a process of approval where required under applicable aboriginal land claims legislation.

Under clause 45:

45.(2) The management plan must be prepared in consultation with any wildlife management board that is established under aboriginal land claims legislation and is affected by the plan.

45.(3) The management plan shall be subject to a process of approval where required under applicable aboriginal land claims legislation.

Paragraph 46(1)(a) permits the responsible minister to make an agreement with the person authorizing that person to engage in an activity affecting a listed, endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat. Depending on what that proposed activity entails, the responsible minister may need to take into account the jurisdiction of the appropriate wildlife management board.

If the NWMB has decided, for instance, under the terms of the agreement that the quota for a particular endangered species is zero and that decision has been upheld by the minister through a process described a few moments ago, then that minister clearly will not be able to make an agreement with that person authorizing him or her to harvest one or more members of that species.

We would then recommend the following modifications to paragraph 46.(1)(a):

46.(1) Subject to the terms of applicable land claims agreements, the responsible minister may make an agreement with the person, or issue a permit to a person, authorizing them to engage in an activity affecting

(a) a listed endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat; or

There you have the substantive submissions of our board with respect to necessary changes to Bill C-65.

I would like to briefly raise two further issues to the committee members, and I promise not to take up too much more of your valuable time.

First is authority over wildlife species and their habitats in the NWT. The board is concerned, from an operational perspective, with the provisions of the bill as currently drafted that could lead to removal of jurisdiction over vulnerable, threatened and endangered wildlife and their habitats from the GNWT to the federal government.

The co-management system under the agreement is one that involves a number of partnerships, not the least of which is that between the NWMB and particular government departments. In order for wildlife management to be effective, all partners must be fully committed, especially in terms of financial and human resources.

If jurisdiction over species such as the Peary caribou and polar bears were removed from the territorial Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development to the Department of the Environment, would the government be prepared to take over the myriad tasks presently performed by the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development? Would it also be prepared to increase its research, consultation and enforcement budget proportionately? Could DOE realistically provide the presence on the ground that is currently provided by this territorial department?

.1040

Would our wildlife and our residents of Nunavut be served as well or better by DOE as by DRWED? I can tell you this. The Department of Environment has no presence in Nunavut.

Does the minister have concrete plans in place to move into Nunavut and operationally take over from the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development? I invite the members to look into that question.

My understanding is that there are no plans and that practical implications of the removal of jurisdiction have not been thought through. Our board fears that should jurisdiction be transferred, the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development will lose its funding from the territorial government for such matters and will cease various operations with respect to certain species. At the same time, the Department of Environment might not be prepared to take over such operations. The ironic and potentially tragic result could be that vulnerable, threatened and endangered species and wildlife will end up in a more precarious situation than they presently find themselves.

There are more realistic alternatives to those that are proposed in the bill. For instance, it is the board's understanding that earlier versions of the bill left jurisdiction over vulnerable, threatened and endangered wildlife to the territories, allowing them a defined amount of time in which to develop comparable legislation or lose such jurisdiction. That arrangement or some variation thereof would, from our perspective, create less uncertainty than what is presently in the bill. Once again, I urge the committee to inquire closely about the Department of Environment's plans for exercising its authority over species at risk in the Northwest Territories.

If the answers it receives are not fully satisfactory, serious consideration should be given to ensuring that authority over such wildlife is left with the Government of the Northwest Territories while at the same time requiring the territorial government to develop appropriate endangered species legislation within a reasonable period of time.

The final point I wish to raise is what happens to the present COSEWIC list of species at risk once this bill becomes law? This bill does not address this matter; however, it should be considered. Will presently listed species be automatically identified or designated under the act? Should there be some type of review process in place? It is my understanding that a number of these designations were made years ago and have not been reviewed since.

Under the act there are a number of specific legal obligations automatically arising from the classifications of vulnerable, threatened or endangered. It would be prudent for a territorial board to thoroughly review the present list, at least for those species that have not been looked at in some time. Before being brought into the act, steps should be taken to ensure that designations are up to date and accurate. Although the act may not be the place to set out in detail what this review process should entail, it ought to at least make a commitment to such a review process.

Despite the criticisms expressed in these submissions, the board does not want to leave the standing committee with the impression that our board disapproves of the proposed act as a whole. From our point of view the act, if the appropriate changes are made, will be a very positive step forward in the ongoing struggle to protect Canadian species at risk - a number of which are found within the arctic ecosystems.

By explicitly recognizing in the act the role of wildlife management boards established under land claims legislation in the designation, classification and protection of endangered, threatened or vulnerable wildlife species, those applying the act will be better able to carry out its very necessary purposes. Nonetheless, the bill as it is now drafted fails generally to take into account the role of such boards. The inevitable result, as I mentioned at the outset, will be jurisdictional disputes; misunderstandings by officials trying in good faith to administer the act; confusion amongst the public; costly attempts to assert and defend perceived rights; and the diversion of valuable time, resources and attention away from species at risk.

.1045

In addition, the board has raised in these submissions both legitimate concerns over the practical operational effect of the transfer of jurisdiction over vulnerable, threatened and endangered wildlife and their habitat from the GNWT to the federal government and the need for a review of designated species to ensure their designations are up to date and accurate before they're brought into the act.

The board would strongly recommend to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that it adopt the recommendations I have outlined today. Naturally, the board would be happy to assist the committee in whatever way would be most helpful, with any further or follow-up work the committee identifies as necessary.

Finally, on behalf of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to be able to make these submissions and for your time spent in considering them.

If you have any questions, Michael and I will be happy to try to answer them as best we can. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Arreak, for your presentation. It's very comprehensive.

Are there any questions for Mr. Arreak?

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin, you had a question?

Mr. Asselin: First of all, I am sorry that the chief of the Assembly of First Nations,Mr. Mercredi, has already left because I had a second question for him.

That being said, it seems the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Mercredi, woke up this morning in a pretty aggressive mood. He certainly didn't miss anyone: the federal government, the provincial governments, the political parties, the minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and white people in general.

Of course, I have to congratulate this witness, who was very cooperative about Bill C-65. Your community has taken the time to prepare a submission, to ask to be heard and to propose amendments.

No bill is ever perfect and that is why we are here this morning hearing witnesses. The federal government is spending money so that we can hear those witnesses, hoping of course their words doesn't fall in the first wastebasket. I hope the minister and the committee take your concerns into consideration.

Of course, there might have been exaggerations and a lack of control, but it is up to the federal and provincial governments to take care of the economy and to get people to work, and that can't be done if we don't develop the natural resources we have here in Canada.

It is quite possible that the development of those natural resources has had an adverse effect, and the chief of the First Nations is blaming us for that. For example, when hydro companies decided to build dams on the rivers, some inhabited lands were flooded, lands where there were wildlife and flora.

There is also the question of agriculture. As the chief of the Assembly of First Nations was saying, our ancestors have cleared and tilled agricultural lands, especially in Quebec. And, in doing so, they might have encroached on lands that had been occupied until then by aboriginal peoples.

In forestry, clear cuts have certainly damaged the environment, but it is an essential resource, readily available, which has helped Canada to balance its economic situation on the international market and given work to a lot of people.

As for mining, it couldn't be done without stepping into aboriginal lands and it has destroyed some animal habitats which are threatened today.

.1050

But I have to say, once again, that it was up to the federal and provincial governments to take care of the economy and to make sure that people living in those areas had work, in cities as well as in rural areas. Some people must pay taxes. The federal and provincial governments have obligations to those who depend on them.

I wish to congratulate you again for your excellent job and for the education work you are doing in order to improve Bill C-65. But where would Canada be if nobody was taking care of the economy and employment?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Arreak, would you like to reply?

Mr. Arreak: I don't think that's why we came here, although I can understand where the member is coming from. I can only relate what I know from our own region, and that is for issues such as that there are other institutions of public government that deal with land use planning, as well as revealing impacts for future proposals.

I don't think those of us in Nunavut are opposed to development, but there are some issues that Inuit are concerned about, primarily with wildlife. Again, we feel that within our settlement area, because of certain conflicts with this proposed bill, it would be easier to modify it to ensure that the protection of a species is the focus rather than a point where boards or governments would have difficulties.

Mr. Michael d'Eça (Legal Counsel, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board): My impression is that you really want to ask that question to Ovide Mercredi and not to our board, since it doesn't flow from our submissions.

Generally, your response to our submissions has been very good, but it's mixed in with your criticism of Mr. Mercredi. It would have been preferable from our point of view if you could have separated them. We don't want to get involved in a dispute between you and Mr. Mercredi; yet the way the compliment is given to us, to accept it is to accept perhaps your criticisms, which we do not do.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think you've laid out your concerns in your fourth area fairly well, on pages 9 and 10 of your brief. Is this a question you're asking or is it something you've given a lot of thought to? I don't mean your brief is not thoughtful, but is this a question you feel you need more information on, or is this something you feel is really going to be a direct result of the legislation?

Mr. d'Eça: We feel it's going to be a direct result of the legislation. The minister has said that the act will apply to the territories, and we think the committee requires more information. It should, in our submission, be talking to DOE to find out its plans, because the legislation says it will take over jurisdiction here. Right now, the territorial government has a department that is on the ground and does work with polar bears, Peary caribou, and so on. It's our understanding that DOE has no presence, at least in the eastern half of the Northwest Territories, in what will become Nunavut.

Has DOE thought this through? Our understanding is that it has not. This was made for other reasons. It primarily included the territories so the legislation could be shown to cover a very large percentage of Canada's land mass and territory, which is great.

.1055

From the NWMB's perspective, this board interacts with ministers. So from a legal perspective, if we interact with the minister from the territorial government or from the federal government, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Operationally, we can see what the territorial government is doing, and we don't see that DOE, especially in this age of cutbacks, realistically can fill what could become a void and what obviously would become a void if the territorial government no longer has jurisdiction. Certain people within that government will say, ``Great, that's a place where we can save money. We'll stop funding that area because the feds are taking it over.''

Our concern is that the committee check carefully into this to see what DOE's plans are. If it has plans and it's all in place and you're satisfied, so be it. But if this has not been thought through in a proper manner...earlier versions of the act had a different scenario. It's obvious we must come up with scenarios where the concerns about endangered species are taken into account while at the same time you allow those who are operating in that area to continue to do so. That's the essence of this section we're putting forward to you.

Mr. Arreak: I think our biggest concern is that because of the endangered species within the Nunavut settlement area - primarily Peary caribou, the bowhead whale, or certain species presently being managed or dealt with by the Government of the Northwest Territories - if push comes to shove and the Department of Environment is not prepared or does not have plans, those particular species will not be properly managed. Those are some of our concerns that led to the question we posed to you.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Has anyone in the Northwest Territories government given any indication that it might pull out because of this act? Have you heard anything at all?

Mr. d'Eça: Our understanding is that the territorial government is very concerned about the matter. It would rather see the bill amended or modified so it doesn't come to that point.

Certainly in our talks with officials within the particular department that covers this, that's their concern. They're saying if the feds now have jurisdiction over polar bears and Peary caribou, for instance - and the territorial government does a lot of work around polar bears - when it comes to budget time, we're very fearful that those who control the purse strings will say we won't get any budget for that. It's an ideal place to make cuts. If that is so, then we definitely need to have assurances that DOE is going to fill that space.

Our fear is it hasn't been thought through and it won't adequately fill the void. It's best to leave it the way it is, but to ensure that the territories put appropriate legislation in place - which I understand it's quite willing to do - it will need a certain amount of time. The federal government always has an overseeing jurisdiction. It can always move in if it feels it's necessary.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

Mr. d'Eça: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, briefly.

Mr. Taylor: Earlier today Mr. Adams, in questioning the Grand Council of the Crees, talked about agreements and compensation paid under those agreements. I would like to ask you if the board has any ability, in the preparation of a management plan on an endangered species, for example, to provide compensation to individuals if communities are affected by decisions made in that management plan.

Mr. Arreak: That's not really part of our mandate because we do not deal with compensation for loss of wildlife, although that is another aspect of the agreement that is dealt with in a different part of the agreement.

.1100

One thing the board does is fund research geared toward getting more information about a particular species that may be threatened, endangered or vulnerable. There is no compensation, but maybe Michael could give us a technical opinion.

Mr. d'Eça: Just to expand on that a little bit, the board's jurisdiction is to approve management plans. So if a management plan comes before the board and the board has concerns about compensation, it can raise them there and say ``Look, this plan ought to take into account compensation for these reasons''. It is worked out with the proponent of the management plan and the NWMB as to what should be in there. Then the board provides its approval.

That approval goes to the minister. The minister looks it over and then goes through the process that was described in our submissions. When all is said and done, the minister implements that decision of the NWMB, which is to approve the management plan and the way everything goes.

Also, as Malachi mentioned, the claim has to be seen as a whole so there are certain bodies. The surface rights tribunal, in our claim under article 6, deals with compensation matters. There are other provisions within the agreement that talk about compensation.

Whenever you're talking about wildlife or wildlife habitat, the board has a certain jurisdiction, but it may not be direct. So in the area of compensation it would deal with the matter through its approval of the management plan, but not directly in terms of providing compensation or anything of that matter.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Let's now conclude by saying to the remaining witnesses in this room, namely Mr. Arreak,Mr. d'Eça, and Mr. Quayle, that on behalf of the committee I will certainly make the commitment that we will look very closely at every specific recommendation made this morning.

Within the framework permitted to this committee, we will endeavour, wherever possible, to implement the suggestions by way of amendments so that we take into full consideration the information they brought to us and the operative aspects that would, if implemented, improve the quality of the bill itself. Obviously, we have to take into account the vastness of the country and the differences in our approaches to wildlife.

On the intervention of Mr. Mercredi, who has left us, he certainly doesn't need a defender or a lawyer and therefore there is not much one can say. I was struck, out of the many things he said, by his observation on development and the alternative to development, which, if I were to paraphrase him, is careful development. I think he made that point particularly when talking about hydro-electric development.

In other words, there are alternatives to the type of development we know and practice at the present time - careful development that takes into account cultural aspects, the requirements of nature, and that would disturb the balance of nature as little as possible. He recognizes the necessity of development, but criticizes the type of development the white society is implementing. In that respect, there is much he said that certainly commands attention and reflection.

He has history on his side - and quite a massive period of history - from which to draw his comments and his criticism. He goes well beyond the scope of this committee, of course. The application of what he said would require rewriting the entire bill perhaps, which I don't think we are empowered to do or capable of doing at the present time.

.1105

I would conclude by saying that what has gone on record, and particularly his warning about future amendments to the Indian Act, is material for us to reflect upon and to take into consideration in the months to come.

With that little sermon, we will conclude. We will resume our sitting tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. in room 701 in the Promenade. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.

Return to Committee Home Page