Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Mr. Chair, before going forward I want to clarify for the record something I made reference to earlier in the interest of Mr. Woodworth's recollection. It's very important for us to acknowledge that there are scientific differences and that evidence-based decision-making is important going forward on SARA, and writ large when it comes to environment. But for the record, I've never heard a Minister of the Environment anywhere refer to scientific evidence as “allegations”. That's exactly what our Minister of the Environment said on the floor of the House.
Let me go to Chief Atleo for a second. I want to get a sense, Chief, if you can help us understand this. I know it's putting you in a difficult spot because I think your assertion is that Treaty No. 8 and other treaty rights, writ large, preclude the application of SARA to first nations territories, but I want to get a sense of how you envisage compensation.
So far the language, in the basically silent passages of the act that deal with compensation, only speaks about extraordinary cases, the extraordinary cases in formal fettering of lack of land.... I don't subscribe, for example, to the view that's manifested by many people on the very far right of the political spectrum, who talk about enshrining property rights in the Constitution and so on. I just don't think that's in line or in tune with the 21st century knowledge we have about things such as species at risk that move and migrate.
What is your understanding about compensation? For example--let me put you in a tough spot--would you think that going forward at another time we should be providing pecuniary compensation, financial compensation? Should we be compensating folks who are taking different measures to protect species? Should aboriginal land or first nations territories be compensated for good stewardship of what is, after all, a global form of natural capital?