Environment Committee on May 5th, 2016

[Alan Latourelle]

The key to our success long term, I would say, is twofold. First, political leadership at the territorial-provincial-national level working towards one common vision is, I think, critical. Otherwise, you can put all the money you want into protected areas, but if you can't establish them because they're under provincial control, you're not going to achieve the objective.

Secondly, as I have mentioned on numerous occasions, I think engaging and involving indigenous leaders from the outset is critical to our success.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You also mentioned urban areas, which gets me to another point. No one today, except you, has mentioned municipalities. Municipalities have a huge role to play as a level of government, but no one wants to recognize them today.

[Alan Latourelle]

Other witnesses have commented on the criteria that we should define in reporting on what are conservation lands, and I think there are some important ones municipally.

We want to make sure it's stringent enough that it doesn't dilute Canada's credibility and the quality of our conservation. Having said that, if I look at the 10% a lot of people are using—and I look at it as an individual—I don't see any lands, for example, from the Labrador Inuit that are in the controlled lands. I don't see a lot of the Nature Conservancy lands. I don't see a lot of land trust lands.

I'm saying that we need to take a step back, take account, and celebrate what we're doing exceptional work on internationally, but it shouldn't dilute our program. We should still have both programs going forward.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I appreciate that.

Valerie, you're networking, and I understand that. You talked about the “moccasin telegraph” that we used in my generation. Could you describe what it would look like? I appreciate what you're talking about, but if I was to tell somebody, could you tell me in your words what it would look like?

[Valerie Courtois]

Absolutely, and I'm hoping with your indulgence that I can ask my colleague, Miles Richardson, who ran the Haida watchmen program, to join me in describing what this could look like.

From an Innu point of view, I ran the program for Innu Nation, who had guardians watching Voisey's Bay, which is a large nickel mine in northern Labrador. They ensured that the project achieved not only sensible management of lands, but also what was set out in the impact benefit agreements and environmental protection plans that were negotiated with the Innu Nation.

They have programs in forestry, hydro, and highway development. The full suite of programs managed by the Innu Nation through this guardians approach allowed for the Innu Nation to have a deeper and richer understanding of what was coming down the line, and how they needed to be involved and lead to determine that projects happen in a way that is not only of benefit to the proponents, but also of benefit to the Innu people.

I'll leave the rest for Miles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, I think we have one more person joining us as a witness, and we have one minute to hear what you have to say. I'm sorry that we're running out of time. I'm really trying to give everyone a chance to ask their questions, so please share with us in the short time what you have to offer.

[Miles Richardson, Senior Advisor, Indigenous Leadership Initiative of the International Boreal Conservation Campaign]

I'm Miles Richardson. I'm with the Gwaii Haanas agreement, which you've been referring to. I was the president of the day of the Haida Nation. I am a signatory to that agreement.

Essential to that agreement was our Haida Gwaii watchmen program, which is our people out on the ground. Here, you're trying to front-end a joint initiative, a nation-to-nation initiative, between Canada and respective first nations across the country based on a common vision for conservation and responsible stewardship, and a common commitment to celebrating the natural and cultural features of each area.

In my day, we did this unilaterally as the Haida Nation. We figured that if we were going to survive, we had to uphold our responsibility as a nation to our place on this earth, so we asked for volunteers. We asked our people to go out there and understand and explain to visitors our policies as a nation for our lands. It was well received by visitors who came there, but not by governments. Governments had different views. They wanted to log the area. They wanted to bring in all kinds of other things contrary to our policies.

We established a nation-to-nation relationship. It's expressed in the Gwaii Haanas agreement, but we have a disagreement over sovereignty, ownership, and jurisdiction. I hope that with this program we could agree on a nation-to-nation basis that we're all here to stay and figure out how we're going to reimagine and coexist in these protected areas. That's the opportunity we have today.

We came at it from an opposite perspective 22 years ago, and we raised a pole in Gwaii Haanas two years ago to celebrate. The miracle is that this nation-to-nation relationship between Haida and Canada has existed, but that's through tough work. If we can build a new, mutually respectful framework, we can do that, and hopefully we don't have to wait until Elizabeth May is prime minister to do that. I think if we're serious about a nation-to-nation relationship, we can do that right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I can assure you that we are serious with this government. Thank you very much for sharing that.

We have one more questioner, Mr. Stetski.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

My question will be for Alan, but I wanted to take a minute to recognize Miles Richardson and the watchmen program in Gwaii Haanas. It really is a model that has helped keep Haida Gwaii in the condition that it is in.

I also want to thank the first nations that have moccasins on the ground and in the water associated with the Great Bear Rainforest as volunteers. I understand that if they were not there, basically there would be no protection of that incredible area, as well. Thank you for your interest.

Alan, as CEO of Parks Canada from 2002 to 2015, you were given the unenviable task of cutting funding for national parks. I was a manager with BC Parks for many years. I share your pain.

My question is, what should Parks Canada's priorities be for restoring or enhancing funding?

[Alan Latourelle]

To be fair to the government, I think it would be inappropriate for me to really get into the organization of Parks Canada.

What I will say, which is on the public record, is that, when I started in 2002, the budget of Parks Canada was $395 million. In the estimates that you have reviewed recently, it was $1.1 billion. That gives you a sense of how the budget has evolved over time in Parks Canada.

Regardless of governments, the priorities should always be about clearly achieving strong international leadership in conservation, about connecting people to nature, getting Canadians to experience their national treasures, but also about ensuring that indigenous voices are heard in our protected areas in Canada.

Those are the fundamentals of who we are as a country and why we are international leaders. It is because we do the three elements.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Steven, I know you touched on it earlier but, just in summary, what do you think the keys to making this new relationship work are?

[Chief Steven Nitah]

I think we have to go back to the early days of contact in the relationship. It was recognized at that time that we needed to work together to survive, and I think we still have to do that going forward, nation to nation, in a relationship based on the treaties, whether it is the numbered treaties—the historical treaties—or the current treaties that have been negotiated.

Every Canadian has a treaty in this country, whether you are indigenous or non-indigenous. If you live in Algonquin territory, there is a treaty with Algonquins. Therefore, as Canadians, you have to respect and support that treaty, so that this government respects those treaties.

Going forward, if we live by those treaties and not try to overpower one another, then I think we could work together and create a nation that is going to be the envy of the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. We are out of time. I regret that, because the conversation is very rich and very important. I really value the time you have given us today.

If there is anything else from the discussion that you think you haven't had a chance to share with us and would like to, then—

[Dave Porter]

We need to have a serious discussion with Parks Canada about zone 7. I was involved in the construction of the Muskwa-Kechika agreement. It was a provincial initiative. We had legislation. Part of the legislation required the Government of B.C. to spend $3 million a year, but because it was provincial, it was unilaterally removed. We need federal protection in terms of parks in that area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. I am just going to let you know that I don't have the authority to run the meeting overtime, and we have gone overtime. I do want you to put—

[Dave Porter]

Then invite us back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Fair enough. Please put that in writing and send it to us, because we do want to consider what you have to share with us. I am really sorry to have to cut you off. It is just that we are out of time.

I thank you all for being here. As we proceed with this, the committee will decide whether we want to extend the time to be able to have you back. We really value what you have said today.

For the committee, is there anything that anybody wants to table at this point? I know we are overtime, and I don't think we have the ability to do anything more today.

Thank you so much. We will see you all on Tuesday next week.