Environment Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Trevor Taylor]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, we'll do that as our last little parting shot.

Mr. Fast, do you want to go next? You have four minutes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thanks so much. This has been a fascinating discussion, and certainly a learning experience for me.

As our committee has undertaken this study and moved forward with it, sadly it appears that it might be coming to a close very soon. We were able to visit a number of different parks in the west: Haida Gwaii , the Gulf Islands National Park, Banff, and Jasper. It became very clear very quickly, I think to all of us, that each of these parks is actually quite different. The challenges are different. Their characteristics are different. How they need to be managed is different. The pressures on those parks are different.

Your presentations today highlight the fact that protected areas in the Arctic region are again going to require very tailored approaches to make sure that we protect those areas and do so in a way that respects our Inuit peoples and provides them with a much more significant say in the management of those areas.

Sadly, we haven't had the Inuit here yet. I don't believe either one of your organizations presumes to speak for the Inuit. When we were out west, we did get a chance to see the first nations' perspective on those lands and some of the struggles they're having and some of the demands they're coming forward to government with.

Again, the areas you're talking about are unique. Is there a way of winning the support of the Inuit in such a way that it becomes an example for the rest of the world on how to manage protected areas?

Could I have your comments, please?

[David Miller]

Yes, and I think you start with Lancaster Sound, because the agreement is almost there.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You've repeated that quite regularly. That's good.

[David Miller]

Sorry to flog it, but you then create the precedent of mutual respect and work out some of the details. That's my view. I'm really speaking personally here, not on behalf off the WWF.

I'll let Mr. Crowley give the official response, if it's any different from mine.

[Paul Crowley]

The best starting point is the most concrete thing that's right in front of us, and communities have been asking for that protection in that area ever since there was oil and gas exploration in the 1970s, which really was very traumatizing to some people in the way it was conducted. They've looked for protection ever since. Working from something concrete is a good place to start.

I would say it's really important not to undervalue what's at stake here for these communities. When it comes to Inuit impact and benefit agreements, bring your A game and the desire to get to an agreement, rather than the desire to get away with the least amount possible.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Taylor, you've suggested that the approach has to be to flip everything on its head and focus on the role that the community plays in terms of benefiting from these protected areas and managing the protected areas, perhaps more so than what we see in other parts of the country.

[Trevor Taylor]

Right. I think if you look back some years, parks establishment was about getting people who lived in the area where a park was going to be established out of them, and then trying to figure out how to get a bunch of tourists back into them. We saw that in many places. We saw it in Newfoundland with Gros Morne National Park. That's what we've done. That definitely needs to be flipped on its head.

These marine protected areas, to the extent that we do them, should be close to communities. They should be owned by the communities.

We talk about an Inuit impact and benefit agreement; the first benefit of a marine protected area in the north should be that it is an area that Inuit want protected. If you're talking about some place that's totally irrelevant to them, why would they be seized with that? I don't think either of us would be, would we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're out of time.

The last one goes to Michael.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me a few minutes.

My name is Michael McLeod. I'm from the Northwest Territories. I come from an area called the Dehcho, which means “big river”. It's in the MacKenzie River area. I belong to the Dehcho First Nations.

I want to speak a bit about the protected areas strategy.

I had the opportunity to watch it over the years. The communities in my riding have a lot of interest in this program.

Many years ago, there was an application filed for a protected area in the Dehcho. A number of communities collectively agreed that this area was a good area that needed to be protected for wildlife. It was a refuge for moose and caribou, with good fishing, and we needed to protect it as things developed.

Things have been moving slowly. Since the application was filed many years ago—I can't remember how many years ago—two applications for diamond mines have been filed and approved. Those mines are operating now, and we still haven't settled the protected area process. There are eight steps. We're stuck at step five, so it's a frustrating process. It takes a long time.

I have done three terms as a territorial politician. I'm now on my first term here, and the process is ongoing. Our grand chief is coming to see if we can get the process going again, but the sad reality is that a lot of our elders who wanted to see this happen have passed away. We don't have that luxury of having the elders guide us as we discuss this further.

There are three areas I want to touch on. I'll just throw them out there so you can answer. One complication in our area has been with the land use discussions or protected areas discussions that are tied to other land tenures, such as national parks or a refuge, and even aboriginal land selection. They have capped it so that it's 40%. All your negotiation discussions can't exceed 40%, including the land that's going to belong to the aboriginal people.

When Nahanni National Park was expanded and announced, our land was shrunk, including the protected areas land. We tried to make it bigger, but they said we had to take it out of the land that we're going to select. That doesn't make sense, but that's what the instructions were. We started with a huge chunk of land that we thought we were going to protect. We're down to 13% of what we initially started with as a request.

What further complicates the process is that in any of these strategies and these discussions, you need sponsors. For the most part the sponsors are government departments, and they help the organizations. Sometimes it's a national organization. I think World Wildlife Fund has been involved with several of these processes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. McLeod, we only had four minutes, and you are almost out of time.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Okay. Can you talk to any of the subject matter that I raised?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It will be for a short time. There is only one minute.

[Paul Crowley]

I think it requires a reversal of the onus. If a community wants to protect the lands that have supported them, we should get out of their way, and frankly, everything has been in their way, so that is a new approach to be taken.

You can award a significant discovery licence in perpetuity, which then blocks in perpetuity other uses for those areas. It just does not make sense.

I think the reversal of the relationship and having a true crown-to-Inuit or crown-to-first nation relationship would require reversing that approach and trusting the people who are on the land.

[David Miller]

When it comes to giving testimony and evidence, we would agree you have correctly identified a difficult problem that has to be solved and is wrong. The system is incorrect in the way it works. I think it starts with a respectful relationship with the indigenous people, but the system needs to prioritize conservation and protection as the first priority.

If that changed, then a lot of the rules, practices, and causes you spoke about eloquently would change. That has to be in the thinking, and if the committee can come to that kind of thinking, then it would be most helpful in preventing these kinds or problems from happening in the future.

We concur that these problems happen. They are wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Unfortunately, our time has come to an end. There are always more questions.

We really appreciate your being here and sharing your wisdom with us. We always mention that if you think there's something you wanted to say and you didn't get a chance to say it, we welcome you to send that to us in the next week. We would really appreciate it and we would be most grateful.

I think we also agreed that you might send us any maps of what the Inuit suggest might be protected areas that you haven't already shared with us. All that will be helpful, and we do understand about Lancaster Sound. We got that message loud and clear.

[A Voice]

It was heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, it was heard.

Mr. Crowley, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Taylor, thank you so much. We appreciate your time and your testimony.

We'll take a quick pause, guys, and then we have to get back to business. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm sorry to do this, but we need to get to the order of business. I was very generous in giving the committee more time, but we really do need to wrap up at half past the hour, and we have some orders of business that we have to get done. Thank you.

At the subcommittee we had a rousing discussion on what we might do going forward and how we're going to get the information we need to feel good about our report.

We came up with a recommendation that we would take the drafting instructions time period, which is right after the Thanksgiving break, and hear from witnesses in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. By noon Friday, everybody needs to let us know what witnesses they want to hear from, so that we could then judge whether we would be able to do that within the time period, the extra two days, or whether we would need to consider more time.

I will discuss the “more time” after I get the witnesses from everybody. We haven't heard from a lot of people yet, so we really need that tomorrow so that we can judge how we move forward.

I would like to suggest that we can't make the final decision on where we're going and how much time we might need until we get the witnesses in front of us and assess what that looks like, which will happen on Friday. What we need to do today is agree on and vote on taking the drafting instruction time that we had designated and hearing witnesses on protected spaces. Then we will have a subcommittee meeting next Tuesday and go back at it again, once we know the witnesses we're going to have.

The 18th and 20th will be for witnesses in Quebec and Ontario and Atlantic Canada. We do recognize that we have not heard from the Inuit. There was a suggestion on maybe hearing from some people on the land claims, so I really need to get those names. We tried to get one of the Inuit to come, but unfortunately he wasn't able to. We're inquiring to see if there's another opportunity that he may be able to come in front of the committee. We open the invitation, and if they can't come, they can't come, so we'll have to see.

Is it clear what we're doing right now? We're just agreeing, with a vote, to devote the 18th and 20th for those witnesses that I'm going to get from you all on Friday by noon, and then, based on what everybody brings forward, we will discuss at the subcommittee next Tuesday how much time we may need.

Is that fair enough?

The motion is—

Sorry; Mr. Eglinski, you want to speak.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I have a hard time, as I mentioned at our subcommittee meeting, with the time frame. After listening to what transpired today from our witnesses, I'm very uncomfortable with doing a report without speaking to the Inuit people. We need to work at trying to get some representation from them to speak to us. It's a large segment that they cover from the east to the west, and without hearing from them in person, it would disturb me a little if we just went into the central part here and eastern Canada.

Maybe I'm being a little bit overcautious, but I think they probably have a story that we need to hear, if we can get them to at least one of our meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. There was a fellow, Natan Obed, who was identified to come and speak in front of us. We asked him to come and be part of this panel, and he's unable to do that. We offered the 18th or the 20th to see if he would be able to fit in on one of those days, and he's not able to do that either. He's not able to engage with us at that time, so we're asking him when he can engage with us. However, if somebody has a different name, then let me know and we'll pursue that.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, could we maybe go to the government up there and ask them if they could maybe supply someone or get someone to work with us?

[Tim Williams, Committee Researcher]

I'm not sure if you want to hear from the Nunavut...?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I don't want to hear from them, but maybe they can suggest who we contact.