Environment Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Okay. I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Fine.

Ms. Duncan, the floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much to both delegations for your testimony. It was very useful.

I'd first like to follow up the testimony of the representatives from Walpole Island First Nation. I noticed in your brief—and you may have addressed this when you presented—that you raised a concern about how the government is defining or constraining when it consults with a first nation. You seem to say that the government does consult if the species is located on the reserve lands, but if the species and habitat happen to be on traditional lands, less consideration is given to the rights and interests of the first nation. That issue was raised in previous testimony, and certainly by the people from the Athabasca/northern Alberta area. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on that a bit more.

[Kennon Johnson]

I will defer that question to our technician, Clinton Jacobs.

[Clinton Jacobs, Coordinator, Natural Heritage, Walpole Island First Nation]

We've had experience with consultations on various scales, as mentioned earlier. In our experience with consultation, the mentality has very much been that of a check box, and our input is not necessarily taken and integrated into these recovery strategies. We're slowly starting to get some consultation processes established for species within our traditional territory. That's being done through Parks Canada. Prior to that it was done primarily by Environment Canada, which was attempting to consult but didn't quite know exactly what to do. For a number of years now we have had a consultation and accommodation protocol for our own first nation, and we've been asking them to respect that and to follow through with it. However, we haven't really got anywhere with that.

I can name a couple of recovery strategies where we've provided technical input, but there were no broad community consultations. Basically it was me and another staff person who reviewed these recovery strategies and provided some input and advice and recommendations. We haven't really seen any results from that. It's taken years.

Parks Canada, I think, has a good model for developing recovery strategies. They bring in a number of groups, first nations, municipalities, stakeholders, and MNR conservation authorities, and so on. They have a multi-day session where they draw up threats and recovery options, and so on. That can take anywhere from three to five days, and then within a month we see a recovery strategy physically in our hand. We were able to review it, whereas with Environment Canada, they have been working on recovery strategies and we only get drafts of the strategies—maybe more—and in some cases just questionnaires and not even a physical document. It has taken seven years and we're still waiting for a draft to review and to provide some input on. When we do get the strategies, our feedback and input are not necessarily incorporated.

So it gets frustrating, but now that we do have our own consultation and accommodation protocol, I think some of the responsible authorities or agencies are starting to see that. I think that for the past four or five years they really didn't know what to do for us in terms of consultation. They were busy trying to come up with policies but not talking to us about what was needed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I wonder if I could just interject here, because I have other questions for you. My time is probably going to be running out. I'm sorry to cut you off, but I really value your input and I have a few more questions for you and CAP.

A number of people who have testified here have raised concerns that the government has not yet implemented the main instruments, the policies and regulations and procedures for implementing SARA. It sounds like that might be part of the problem.

When I was assistant deputy for resources in the Yukon, we actually implemented a protocol for the delivery of any science in the Yukon. That protocol included the point that first nations had to be involved in collecting the information and that they would be the first to hear the results. I'm wondering if one of the pieces that's missing is the following. You can advise me on this and we'll ask NACOSAR about it later. Is there actually a framework, or has there been consultation across first nations and Métis on how aboriginal traditional knowledge is to be collected?

My second question is whether some first nations and organizations do their own “science” in addition to collecting aboriginal traditional knowledge.

Whoever would like to speak first to that, go ahead. CAP?

[Alastair MacPhee]

We're negotiating with Environment Canada to review a whole suite of policies connected with the Species at Risk Act, and it's taken some time to get to that level. We haven't been involved in the regulations and some other aspects of this.

What you did in the Yukon sounds very interesting. I'd like to read more about it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Johnson.

[Kennon Johnson]

One of the problems we face in our community with regard to ATK versus western science...I don't think it's a matter of meshing the two together. I think there could be a parallel process where each are given equal consideration and incorporated into the strategies, which becomes beneficial for all parties, so it's easy to understand.

Now in saying that, there are some difficulties in regard to aboriginal traditional knowledge, as not all of our elders will share the information. We look at our immediate homelands on the delta and what's going on beyond the delta, which is basically a desert once you get off the reservation, and you hit miles and miles of agricultural lands with very limited forestry and wildlife.

Our challenge is that our elders have a hesitancy to share all that information. They're more likely to share it with the community versus a non-native, as they have the mentality that the non-natives have had their chance to manage their lands. When you look at what they have done beyond the reserve, there's more of a tendency to share with a community member. However, they restrict some of that information, as they don't want it to be shared with others.

It puts us in a difficult situation. We want to improve things for everybody, and we face some of those challenges with aboriginal traditional knowledge.

[Clinton Jacobs]

Our first nation hasn't been involved in developing those regulations or instruments.

One good example is that under SARA there are section 11, 12, and 13 agreements that warrant the government to enter into agreements with anybody in Canada--any Canadians. We've been asking to get into this type of agreement with the crown for at least five years, and we have had frustration after frustration. We've been to every one of the federal agencies and met a stonewall. What we did was to develop our own...and we're willing to share that to start the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

The time has expired.

Mr. Warawa will kick us off on the last round.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses.

I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Shipley, because he has the honour of representing some of these people in Ottawa. When we hit around three or four minutes, please let me know.

My questions are for the representatives from the Walpole Island First Nation. I took a look at some pictures of it online, and it's a beautiful community.

We heard from CAP that there were multiple parties consulting with first nations groups. It was often the same questions being asked again and again, which brought up the question of how genuine or coordinated or valuable that consultation was.

Councillor Johnson, have you experienced multiple parties asking the same thing in consultation?

[Kennon Johnson]

Yes, we have faced the same situation here. It seems like one strategy after another comes in, and then the development happening within our territory warrants further consultations. It seems to be a repeated process in that community, and they get tired of it, or people lose interest.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

In your submission you said:

Attempts to identify Critical Habitat on privately held lands have elicited the destruction of would be Critical Habitat, resulting in destruction of species' habitats with no legal recourse.

Could you elaborate on that?

[Clinton Jacobs]

It's something we came across. I don't know whether it was a Facebook page or a web page. It's actually not on our territory. I shouldn't say that; it's not on the delta, our first nation, but it's within our homeland territory. It's non-native communities or individuals who are doing this. They're concerned, particularly around the provincial endangered species legislation, that their voice is not being heard and that all the cost burdens will be on their shoulders to protect these species. It's something we came across recently, and we were wondering what the federal government, or even the province, would be doing to deal with this to address that issue. It's happening on our traditional territory, so we're concerned about it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Are you suggesting that SARA may work for some first nations people, or it's not working? You're suggesting it won't work for you, but are you suggesting it may be applicable legislation for some? You're saying for Walpole Island First Nation it would be better if you managed it yourself. Is that correct?

[Clinton Jacobs]

Yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

And the consultation to this point, you're saying, is disjointed and not adequate.

[Clinton Jacobs]

Absolutely.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you so much. I'm going to hand it over.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa and witnesses. Welcome, at a distance, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jacobs.

First of all, to the committee, you need to know that they've set up and have extensive research on the island in terms of species at risk. They do take that. I've visited and I was very impressed with it.

I do have a couple of questions.

Things are changing rapidly in the area of the Sydenham and the Snye, which had pollution problems. Actually they have now much improved in terms of those pollution problems, so there are some good things happening.

I think it was Mr. Johnson's comment that some of the species at risk are not species at risk sometimes. I think of one of the issues around the hickorynut mussel, which is in all our drainage ditches, plugging them up...and yet we have issues of moving ahead sometimes with some projects.

I'm wondering about that, because we're looking to move ahead, and one of the discussions they had is in terms of a wind farm operation. Do you see that as having any impact in terms of some of the issues you've brought forward concerning the species at risk, issues that touch on not only the species at risk legislation but also some of your cultural issues? Do you see that as a conflict?

[Kennon Johnson]

I think that's a direct conflict. One of the problems we're facing in our community right now is because we're being approached by multiple projects at this point and we cannot know where to begin to deal with all of these companies. There are many questions that we can't answer at this point in time, in terms of the use of the lake and the loss of fishing and hunting areas. In addition to that, nobody seems to be able to answer on the alteration of migration routes. Other shortfalls include saturation points within the area. How many turbines can be tolerated within this region before it has a major impact? There are going to be impacts from the beginning. A lot of those things seem to fall short. As a political person in my community, it's difficult in that I cannot give a response back to my community members to address those types of issues.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'd like to move on to one other because I have very limited time.

It's just to help me understand NACOSAR, in terms of an organization that was set up under species at risk and has representatives of aboriginal people to represent aboriginal organizations. I'm hearing that NACOSAR is representing that larger group, but I'm also hearing from you that, no.... I'm not so sure they can speak for the group because each of you have cultural differences on the interpretation of the species at risk. Help me with that. Am I missing the point on it?

[Clinton Jacobs]

NACOSAR may be effective if they are provided adequate resources. We haven't had any reps come to our neck of the woods. We have to go where they are, so it is our resources that we're expending trying to meet with them, and it's difficult to speak to any one individual when they're all shifting around.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Time has expired.

Mr. Jacobs, I want to ask a question for clarification. You mentioned that some critical habitat was destroyed on some of your traditional land, although it wasn't part of the first nation of Walpole Island. Can you elaborate on that a bit?