Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the committee, thank you so much for accepting our request to provide a submission here. We do, of course, have our full submission. Our apologies; we only have it in English. I will provide an overview of our full submission. It does include 27 recommendations. We are very appreciative of the invitation to offer up some thoughts. I'll cover the main highlights over the next 10 minutes. I'll move very quickly through this.
Of course we feel very strongly about this five-year review that's occurring, and that we as first nations in fact have lots to offer, not only to this conversation but to this country. We have a close relationship with the land, and repeatedly offer to share what it is that our people know about the environment, with the hope that our knowledge will assist others to improve the quality of life for all.
We need to register an early concern about the lack of consultation or engagement directly with first nations thus far in considering and proposing changes to the Species at Risk Act. First nations have, as you know, a historic, current, and ongoing relationship with Canada's species, as important functions of our aboriginal right for food, social, and ceremonial purposes...many of which were captured in the treaties, the oldest of which was forged over 260 years ago and helped to in fact found the country of Canada as a whole. Our aboriginal and treaty rights include the right to practice hunting, fishing, harvesting, and trapping.
Many first nations are now currently engaged in applying state-of-the-art mapping technology to their collections of aboriginal traditional knowledge and locations of traditional and sacred sites in support of sustainable community development and planning. These are excellent developments that are occurring, which I've had some experience with personally.
We know as well--all of us--of the link to our people's food and other medicines. I want to articulate to the committee the impact that will very often occur on the lands and on the grounds when our people are pursuing their food and sustenance--for example, species such as the caribou in the north. There is a need for first nations to be involved. When there isn't involvement and when our people are out on the land, we see evidence of conflict both between nations when it's not clear, or when our people are not involved at the front end, or between first nations and other jurisdictions.
So that idea of having great clarity between a recognition of first nations treaty rights and title rights, and the interaction with other jurisdictions, is something that, through this five-year review, there's a real opportunity to address.
In moving forward, we submit that it's necessary for governments to recognize first nations jurisdiction and ownership over lands as an integral component of title.
In the written submission, it covers six general areas. I would like to very quickly highlight those six areas.
First of all, on the administration of SARA, first nations submit that the listing of species is an infringement on first nations right or treaty right that requires justification on the part of the crown. First nations are fully aware that the extinction of a species is really the extinguishment of the right to food, social, and ceremonial rights. For the purposes of SARA, first nations suggest that we must be included in the administration of the act. I again go back to the essence of what the original treaties that helped to forge and form this country were always about—mutual recognition and respect.
Provisions are made for consultation with the INAC minister in subsections 59(5) and 71(2). While these provisions address the minister's responsibility for reserve lands, they are not sufficient to allow the minister the opportunity to address the broader interests of first nations. SARA has affected more than first nations land. It has affected the opportunities for first nations to pursue traditional, cultural, ceremonial, and economic activities. Examples can be brought to bear in that area. The current provisions of SARA provide insufficient coordination with the minister over the use of reserve lands. We recommend that is something that must be addressed.
Secondly, with the NACOSAR council, the minister has sole discretion to select members to an advisory council for the purposes of section 8.1 and the discretion to determine what constitutes an appropriate aboriginal organization. It's important for us to emphasize that there must be specific recognition of aboriginal peoples as it is articulated in section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
The term “aboriginal organization” is clearly defined within the act and is limited to the legitimate aboriginal rights holders and national organizations. In our view, NACOSAR would function better if it recognized the three distinct peoples in the Canadian Constitution—first nations, Inuit, and Métis—and went to the appropriate bodies that are representative of those three distinct groups. We, of course, are here as the Assembly of First Nations supporting the recognition of first nations governments.
Third is the engagement of first nations in aboriginal traditional knowledge. SARA does not speak to government's intention regarding the recognition of first nation governments as among the various orders of government. Our interpretation, or how we receive that, is that there is a presumption in the legislation that first nations governments are not so considered in the terminology of various orders of government, and that becomes a challenge or an issue for us.
There are also concerns regarding the reference to wildlife management boards. SARA is unclear which boards would be involved and how they would be involved and what their purposes are.
The recognition of traditional knowledge, to be very clear, is historic and long overdue. It is very much welcome, but more must be done to ensure that traditional knowledge is protected from misappropriation, theft, misuse, and being placed in the public domain.
There are a number of international instruments that speak to the issue of traditional knowledge. We can look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and I'm pleased to see that the government is moving toward endorsing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. All three of these international covenants speak to the protection or recognition of traditional knowledge.
It's important to note the tremendous variety of traditional knowledge. We recommend that government move to work more directly with first nations governments when it comes to traditional knowledge. Many first nations have implemented their own governance tools to protect such knowledge and have established processes or protocols on how such knowledge can be accessed or used. That is a specific suggestion in that area.
One of the main recommendations in our submission is the creation of a first nation-specific advisory body. We submit that consideration should be given to the establishment of advisory committees under subsection 9(1) of SARA to assist the minister in the administration of the act and to provide advice to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council from a first nations perspective. What we're suggesting is a move away from the closed-door discussions between federal, provincial, and territorial authorities, and to recognize the jurisdiction and value that first nations bring and to engage them fully. Otherwise, we would submit that if first nations are not a party, there is a high probability of a breach of aboriginal or treaty rights. A committee under subsection 9(1) could offer advice and recommendations on issues pertaining to first nations inherent or treaty rights.
Quickly, the fourth piece in our submission I want to touch upon is stewardship action planning. Current program structure really does not reflect the reality that first nations lands are home to an estimated 40% of listed species in Canada. Reserves governed by treaty and the Indian Act are unique and unlike any other lands in Canada. We strongly reiterate the strong suggestion of the need for consultation with first nations and for government to act in good faith prior to any imposition or potential infringement upon first nations. Carefully crafted stewardship agreements could in fact be very beneficial and achieve the goals of conservation. There is a need, as there has always been, to support the building of capacity for and amongst first nations to complete the work in this area, and in other areas that apply.
First nations must compete for funding to build capacity and other species at risk work by applying to the aboriginal funds for species at risk. My comment here is that it's an arbitrary process with little or no aboriginal participation or engagement. Committee members, the theme continues to be the need for direct and full first nations involvement.
I also have a few quick comments on the listing process. The imposition of SARA prohibitions infringe upon first nations socio-economic activities directly or indirectly, such as commercial or food fisheries, which I alluded to earlier, and other community events or spiritual practices relating to observances, offerings, or memorial services. So there's a gap here that we suggest needs to be filled, where first nations are substantially left out of the listing process.
The suggestion here is for an amendment to subsection 36(2) to recognize the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as the minister responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Subsection 36(2) must be amended to reflect the reality of the minister's responsibility for first nations and to make sure that the relevant sections of SARA include consultation. This speaks to our treaty rights and title, and indicates that first nations are seeking that government-to-government approach.
I have two points to close on.
First is compensation. Again, we call on the federal government to work with first nations directly and we call for an amendment to subsection 64(2) to provide for compensation where losses are suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact. Here there are legitimate concerns about potential infringement, and we reiterate the need for first nations to be directly involved.
Lastly, to close, there is the issue of enforcement measures. The repeated requests of communities to be involved in sentencing have not been picked up but have been ignored by the Canadian Wildlife Service's enforcement branch. The theme here is the need for first nations to be fully engaged, right from beginning through the entire process, all the way to enforcement.
There is so much more that first nations have to offer. There is tremendous potential in the areas I've described. First nations are willing to be full partners in moving forward.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.